A Very Limited Geography

[_stemelbow]

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?

As for your question, that's my point. Its not relevant. This thread was started to discuss mtDNA, and the Lemba doesn't lend to that discussion, it seems. For the second question, that's been discussed the link I gave. The CMH group is prevalent among the Levite simitic peoples.

And

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

Well, thanks for at least, sticking it out then.

1. Lehi and Ishmael were from the Middle East and presumably had some DNA markers consistent with other Semitic and Middle Eastern peoples.

Perhaps of their time.

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.

One thing seems evident concerning this bullet point—the people of Mongolia don’t have a defined origin themselves. If your assumption is correct, “it would be reasonable to expect some Middle Eastern markers in the NA mt DNA” then we ought to at least be able to find what would be expected among the women of the ancient group.

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.

What? The CMH is present in approximately 45-55% of Ashkenazic and Sephardic Cohens, compared to 2-3% of non-Cohen Jews. It is also found in the Buba clan of the Lemba tribe of Zimbabwe, the Bnei Menashe of India, and in several non-Jewish populations, including Armenians, Kurds, Hungarians, and central and southern Italians.
And
Jewish DNA researcher Dr. Ken Jacobs states: "The only Jewish subgroup that does show some homogeneity--descendants of the Cohanim, or priestly class--makes up only about 2 percent of the Jewish population. Even within the Cohanim, and certainly within the rest of the Jewish people, there's a vast amount of genetic variation."13

3. We haven't found any Middle Eastern DNA evidence among Native Americans, mtDNA or CMH.

I’d say that’s at least a bit overstated.
Following the discovery of the first, more common, Native American mtDNA haplogroups in the early 1990s (originally termed A, B, C, and D and later renamed A2, B2, C1, and D1 to distinguish them from their Asian "cousins"), a fifth haplogroup was identified in 1996 by Forster and colleagues and named haplogroup X (not to be confused with the X chromosome).35 Contrary to nearly all the world haplogroups, it is not geographically confined, but it is found at low frequency among several populations: Europeans, Africans, Asians, Middle Easterners, and Native Americans.

4. The lack of Hebrew mtDNA among the Lemba, who are known to have descended from male Jews, is not surprising.

Okay.

5. The Lemba's mtDNA is indistinguishable from other Bantu tribes, which again is to be expected because the Jewish ancestors were male.

Alright.

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.

The only pronouncement I have stuck to, and its argued int eh link, is the CMH marker. The point regarding Middle Eastern mtDNA is up in the air as I see it. There are plenty of reasons to question what one would expect from Lehi and co DNA and mt DNA.

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.

But what are middle eastern sources?

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

I offer you the link. I don’t kow if I can put it any better myself:
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences ... ormon.html

[_stemelbow]

Themis and Buffalo,

I'm not sure what more to say about it all. The FAIR piece did not deceive or suggest anything different from the original study. And, if it did, the one article is not a good example to make your case to complain about the whole of FAIR and FARMS. Sorry. I don't see what you guys are making a fuss about.

[_Themis]

Themis and Buffalo,

I'm not sure what more to say about it all. The FAIR piece did not deceive or suggest anything different from the original study. And, if it did, the one article is not a good example to make your case to complain about the whole of FAIR and FARMS. Sorry. I don't see what you guys are making a fuss about.

My experience with Fair and farms is that they will leave out information that does not support what arguments they are trying to make. I think Morley already showed us one.

[_stemelbow]

My experience with Fair and farms is that they will leave out information that does not support what arguments they are trying to make. I think Morley already showed us one.

Well Morely left out information too that doesn't support his argument. Of course when using a source as reference you can't include all things. You include the information that pertains to your writing. Right? What's the big deal here? They didn't quote the whole study? they referenced it just as they should have. Indeed, how else to Morley find it?

[Guest]

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.

Stem,

Please read the original article on the Linzi. (There are two follow up articles on the same subject.)

To grossly over-simplify:

1) The population was ethnically Han (to pick a term) at 2500 years ago :: not much Linzi DNA

2) The Linzi came in greater numbers and mixed with them (possibly to establish a trading center) at 2000 years ago :: bunch o' Linzi DNA

3) They were absorbed by the greater numbers of Han Chinese. Fast forward to modern times :: not much Linzi DNA

In spite of that, their DNA is still recognizable and can be measured 2000 years later.

Furthermore, one should be able to find such DNA in present day or fossilized remains of pre-Columbian Americans.

No, you won't find Linzi DNA. You should find Israelite, Mideastern, or European DNA. Mixed with the Siberian DNA, which is all we find now.

~~disclaimer: I am certainly not an expert in any of this.

..............

By the way, Stem- I found the article by doing a Google search on your quotation. I was also familiar with the research, having read it years ago. I gave you the reference so you could read the whole article yourself. That's not leaving stuff out.

[_Themis]

As for your question, that's my point. Its not relevant. This thread was started to discuss mtDNA, and the Lemba doesn't lend to that discussion, it seems. For the second question, that's been discussed the link I gave. The CMH group is prevalent among the Levite simitic peoples.

I must have missed where in the OP that the discussion was to be limited to mtDNA? I thought it was about DNA in general and how it relates to the Book of Mormon claims.

Perhaps of their time.

I think this may be one of his hang ups. He thinks that since Lehi left and after the Babylonian captivity that they were all gone so we don't know what Lehi's groups DNA should look like. If he would do a little more study this wouldn't be an issue though. First and most important we know what it should not look like Native American DNA that has been in the Americas for about 16,000 years. Second we do know what there DNA should basically look like that if it showed up in the Americas scientist would be able to trace it back to it's origins which would be in the middle east. Now again this discussion is not limited to just mtDNA. by the way the mtDNA in the Americas arrives way before Lehi's females would have arrived. Even they would have been related to areas surrounding the Middle east and most likely closely related to those they were married to.

One thing seems evident concerning this bullet point—the people of Mongolia don’t have a defined origin themselves. If your assumption is correct, “it would be reasonable to expect some Middle Eastern markers in the NA mt DNA” then we ought to at least be able to find what would be expected among the women of the ancient group.

Irrelevant since the mtDNA that arrived in NA predates Lehi by over 10,000 years. This really is the big issue. It is alos unlikely for all of Lehi's group or the other groups women to all have mtDNA related eastern Asia areas and it would show up as a later incursion.

What? The CMH is present in approximately 45-55% of Ashkenazic and Sephardic Cohens, compared to 2-3% of non-Cohen Jews. It is also found in the Buba clan of the Lemba tribe of Zimbabwe, the Bnei Menashe of India, and in several non-Jewish populations, including Armenians, Kurds, Hungarians, and central and southern Italians.
And
Jewish DNA researcher Dr. Ken Jacobs states: "The only Jewish subgroup that does show some homogeneity--descendants of the Cohanim, or priestly class--makes up only about 2 percent of the Jewish population. Even within the Cohanim, and certainly within the rest of the Jewish people, there's a vast amount of genetic variation."13

So? It does not change what they found and it's significance.

I’d say that’s at least a bit overstated.

Fine show us the DNA and make sure it's arrival is pre-Columbus.

Following the discovery of the first, more common, Native American mtDNA haplogroups in the early 1990s (originally termed A, B, C, and D and later renamed A2, B2, C1, and D1 to distinguish them from their Asian "cousins"), a fifth haplogroup was identified in 1996 by Forster and colleagues and named haplogroup X (not to be confused with the X chromosome).35 Contrary to nearly all the world haplogroups, it is not geographically confined, but it is found at low frequency among several populations: Europeans, Africans, Asians, Middle Easterners, and Native Americans.

I believe Simon already covered this that it's arrival is also way to early and since it also shows up in the same Asian populations that we find a-d I think you can figure that one out.

The only pronouncement I have stuck to, and its argued int eh link, is the CMH marker.

No one ever made the claim it had to be this DNA showing up, but it still doesn't deal with the big issue I mentioned above.

The point regarding Middle Eastern mtDNA is up in the air as I see it. There are plenty of reasons to question what one would expect from Lehi and co DNA and mt DNA.

Only if you are an apologists and need to protect the Book of Mormon. The rest can see the unlikeliness of what you are suggesting which still does not deal with the DNA we do find in the Americas.

But what are middle eastern sources?

Semitic is one. You can look up the rest. It's not like scientists have no idea.

[_Buffalo]

My experience with Fair and farms is that they will leave out information that does not support what arguments they are trying to make. I think Morley already showed us one.

Well Morely left out information too that doesn't support his argument. Of course when using a source as reference you can't include all things. You include the information that pertains to your writing. Right? What's the big deal here? They didn't quote the whole study? they referenced it just as they should have. Indeed, how else to Morley find it?

FAIR deliberately left out the information that was damaging to the argument it was trying to make, so much that it amounted to lying and misrepresenting the source. Morley demonstrated that here:

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.

FAIR likes to present itself as some sort of scholarly organization, but it behaves more like a tabloid.

[_stemelbow]

Stem,

Please read the original article on the Linzi. (There are two follow up articles on the same subject.)

I did.

To grossly over-simplify:

1) The population was ethnically Han (to pick a term) at 2500 years ago :: not much Linzi DNA

Huh?

Even more surprisingly, 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.
And
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.
As it turns out the present day Han come out far distinct from either the people from either the 2500 year ago population and the 2000 year old population.
The similarity between the genetic structures of the 2,500-year-old Linzi population and the present-day European populations indicates that there was a genetic shift in the Linzi area from a European-like population to a population more like those found in present-day east Asia, probably caused by migration. This is in accord with the existence of the Eurasiatic superfamily languages, which surround a linguistically unique Sino-Tibetan language, the present-day Chinese language (Ruhlen 1987, 1994<$REFLINK> ; Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, and Piazza 1994<$REFLINK> ).

2) The Linzi came in greater numbers and mixed with them (possibly to establish a trading center) at 2000 years ago :: bunch o' Linzi DNA

The period of Chinese history that dates to 2,500 years ago corresponds to the transition period from the Spring–Autumn era to the Warring States era, and the period around 2,000 years ago was in the middle of the Han era. Linzi, our sampling location, was the capital of the feudal state Qi in the Spring–Autumn and the Warring States eras. Qin, one of the feudal states during those periods, conquered other states, including Qi, and established the first unified nation in China. Subsequently, the Han dynasty followed Qin after great disturbances of war. Therefore, our finding that the population structure of Linzi changed drastically during those periods can be concordant with these historical events.
Just quoting the pertinent information for this bullet point. Hopefully we’re in agreement. I can’t tell because you keep using Linzi in a different way then the study does. Oddly enough, I’ve been reading The Great Transformation by Karen Armstrong as of late and she covers some history in this area. It is a fascination area of world history indeed.

3) They were absorbed by the greater numbers of Han Chinese. Fast forward to modern times :: not much Linzi DNA

Indeed, the study seems to confirm each group was very distinct genetically. The drastic change from 2500 years ago and 2000 years ago says a ton regarding possibilities with ancient Israelites and ancient Native Americans. Indeed, this study seems to put to rest, almost on its own, the theories propounded by LDS critics and DNA, at least until more studies are conducted.

In spite of that, their DNA is still recognizable and can be measured 2000 years later.

Indeed. It would be nice if similar studies could be done to other populations, and it would be nice if we could add to that some historical information that helps us understand it. But alas, such is not an easy thing to accomplish, it seems. We’re left kinda in the dark on some of this stuff. I guess knowing this doesn’t stop the critics of LDS to conclude things they have no business concluding though. Like:

Furthermore, one should be able to find such DNA in present day or fossilized remains of pre-Columbian Americans.

Whatever. You say it best when you admit you are not an expert in any of this. I’m not either, but its hard to read your dogmatic statements grounded in ignorance as serious. NO offense of course.

No, you won't find Linzi DNA. You should find Israelite, Mideastern, or European DNA. Mixed with the Siberian DNA, which is all we find now.

~~disclaimer: I am certainly not an expert in any of this.

Welcome to the “in no way and expert on this stuff” club. I just don’t see what you think we should find. If ya have some reasoning to your statement here, I would be happy to consider it. So far there is nothing but a statement hanging out in the middle of nothing—a bald assertion.

..............

By the way, Stem- I found the article by doing a Google search on your quotation. I was also familiar with the research, having read it years ago. I gave you the reference so you could read the whole article yourself. That's not leaving stuff out.

I agree. You didn’t leave it out. I was using what you did as an example to show Buffalo and Themis how silly they were being. It didn’t work though. Oh well. Your argument here is with them, not me. I agree with you.

[_stemelbow]

I think this may be one of his hang ups. He thinks that since Lehi left and after the Babylonian captivity that they were all gone so we don't know what Lehi's groups DNA should look like.

Huh? That’s not what he suggested, per se.

If he would do a little more study this wouldn't be an issue though. First and most important we know what it should not look like Native American DNA that has been in the Americas for about 16,000 years.

We don’t know anything of the sort. We know its been theorized that NA originally came to America some thousands of years ago via Siberia, the Bearing land bridge and whathave you. But there are tons of experts who theorize differently, and its also been shown that there are plenty of reasons to dispute the migration from Siberia only theory. As more information comes out, we’ll see how well your attempted stated fact holds up.

Second we do know what there DNA should basically look like that if it showed up in the Americas scientist would be able to trace it back to it's origins which would be in the middle east.

You have placed tons of faith in dogmatic assumptions about scientists which scientists, at least form what I”ve seen, would not necessarily assume—at least not so dogmatically as you.

Now again this discussion is not limited to just mtDNA. by the way the mtDNA in the Americas arrives way before Lehi's females would have arrived. Even they would have been related to areas surrounding the Middle east and most likely closely related to those they were married to.

There is plenty of room for questioning this. I mean by and large we would know the genetic structure of the women in Lehi’s co, necessarily, to start with. Oh well.

Irrelevant since the mtDNA that arrived in NA predates Lehi by over 10,000 years. This really is the big issue. It is alos unlikely for all of Lehi's group or the other groups women to all have mtDNA related eastern Asia areas and it would show up as a later incursion.

I hate to say it, but I’m astounded by your willingness to make these types of conclusions. How wold you know?

So? It does not change what they found and it's significance.

What who found? I’m confused about what you are saying here.

Fine show us the DNA and make sure it's arrival is pre-Columbus.

Huh? I’m afraid I’ve missed your point.

I believe Simon already covered this that it's arrival is also way to early and since it also shows up in the same Asian populations that we find a-d I think you can figure that one out.

I don’t know if we’ve pinpointed when it could have arrived. I merely contested Runtu’s, I believe, statement.

Only if you are an apologists and need to protect the Book of Mormon. The rest can see the unlikeliness of what you are suggesting which still does not deal with the DNA we do find in the Americas.

I didn’t say it wasn’t unlikely as far as what we do understand. But the point remains—the criticisms are far over-stated and the conclusions reached in order to argue against the Book of Mormon are dogmatic and in some cases opposed to scientific research. Mostly they are just hasty conclusions.

Semitic is one. You can look up the rest. It's not like scientists have no idea.

I’m afraid its not as cut and dry as you seem to think. I could be wrong.

[_stemelbow]

FAIR deliberately left out the information that was damaging to the argument it was trying to make, so much that it amounted to lying and misrepresenting the source. Morley demonstrated that here:

What are you talking about? You have simply made a statement that is not true. FAIR did no such thing. He did a very good job in summarizing the study in a very shot amount of space, if you ask me. Morely's quotation doesn't show anything underhanded by him at all.