A Very Limited Geography

[_Morley]

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.

Wow, Stem. Wow. I am stunned.

There is no talking to you about substance. It's like discussing the Iliad with someone who is reading The Cat in the Hat. (And I'll grant it might be me who's reading Seuss.) So, I will follow Southerton now and quit. Fool I was, to try. (Cue Simon Belmont: They've been pwned!)

Two last thoughts: You're wrong, I have no argument with Buffalo and Themis. They (and others) have been long suffering heroes in this discussion with you. And I've made no dogmatic statements. I'm not sure you know what "dogmatic" means. To quote you: "NO offense of course."

As always, I could be wrong. And your mileage may vary.

Good luck.

[_Buffalo]

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.

They completely omitted the information that Morley posted, which renders irrelevant the point FAIR was making. It's easy to make it look like your opinions are backed up by evidence if you leave out the evidence that contradicts your point.

[_Fifth Columnist]

Wow, Stem. Wow. I am stunned.

There is no talking to you about substance. It's like discussing the Iliad with someone who is reading The Cat in the Hat. (And I'll grant it might be me who's reading Seuss.) So, I will follow Southerton now and quit. Fool I was, to try. (Cue Simon Belmont: They've been pwned!)

Two last thoughts: You're wrong, I have no argument with Buffalo and Themis. They (and others) have been long suffering heroes in this discussion with you. And I've made no dogmatic statements. I'm not sure you know what "dogmatic" means. To quote you: "NO offense of course."

As always, I could be wrong. And your mileage may vary.

Good luck.

Welcome to the club. Stem would do well to gain some understanding of population genetics. Right now, he is nothing more than a guy with a testimony who knows how to copy and paste from FAIR's website. I probably shouldn't be too hard on him. I was the same guy not that long ago.

[_stemelbow]

Morley,

You're wrong, I have no argument with Buffalo and Themis. They (and others) have been long suffering heroes in this discussion with you.

You are right they sure are heroes to dare attempt to discuss things with this TBM, or whatever. The point they made was that the FAIR piece didn't quote the whole study and therefore FAIR was being dishonest. You did'New Testament quote it all either. But none of us think you were being dishonest. I guess I'm a lone wolf in thinking their point was silly. It seemed like you had agreed with me. Oh well. If not, whateves. Have a good one.

[_stemelbow]

They completely omitted the information that Morley posted, which renders irrelevant the point FAIR was making. It's easy to make it look like your opinions are backed up by evidence if you leave out the evidence that contradicts your point.

The quote from Morley did not in any way render the point Stewart had made. We're all a little confused it seems--talking past each other or something. Oh well, this thread is dying.

[Guest]

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

I may be my fault or maybe yours, but I was referring to you.

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.

Perhaps you could provide those other theories. The ones I know about all involve migrations from that are whether by land or around the coast, and they all are far to long ago for Lehi's group. I also know about other theories of small groups as well. So far nothing supports any Israelite group.

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.

The only dogmatic behavior seems to be coming from you. If Lehi's group showed up and flourished as the text tells us then yes it is reasonable to expect to see DNA that does not belong to the main DNA of Native Americans. That this has not really happened yet to support Book of Mormon claims causes apologists to run around spouting to more unlikely scenarios of why we do not see what is reasonably expected.

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.

I think you meant we don't know, but we do know where they lived and when. Semitic groups have inhabited these areas during these times before and after and most add mixing would be from areas closer then ares farther away so we can expect that certain mtDNA from even a broader area should show up. The poor apologetic that all these women came from populations related to eastern Asian populations today may no be impossible but is a little to unlikely to be reasonable.

Edit: I believe it would also be able to see from mtDNA a-d and x that arrived later by looking at the mutations. I believe this is one of the methods used to see if populations have been isolated from each other.

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

Here is a good article to read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_of_the_Americas I am not aware that any experts think the mtDNA founding groups in the Americas could have come from any potential migration 2500 years ago.

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

Unfortunately this seems to be epidemic. I am sure Simon would be better at explaining things better then I.

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

And of course I agree with Runtu. :)

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

Things never are, but that does not really change what has been said here.

[_stemelbow]

Welcome to the club. Stem would do well to gain some understanding of population genetics. Right now, he is nothing more than a guy with a testimony who knows how to copy and paste from FAIR's website. I probably shouldn't be too hard on him. I was the same guy not that long ago.

I've also copied and pasted from the actual study to argue my points. I simply don't see the reasoning behind the dogmatic statements made by critics here, since some studies, the Linzi study is a good example, render their dogmatism moot.

I hate to characterize it as dogmatism but I can't see it in any other way, since the statements denouncing the Book of Mormon in terms of genetic are bald and unsupported.

[_Themis]

I hate to characterize it as dogmatism but I can't see it in any other way, since the statements denouncing the Book of Mormon in terms of genetic are bald and unsupported.

I would say that the evidence to date does not support the Book of Mormon and it seems even LDS experts have said their mtDNA a-d and x are not from any groups arriving 2500 years ago but from the migrations over 10,000 years ago.

[_Buffalo]

Welcome to the club. Stem would do well to gain some understanding of population genetics. Right now, he is nothing more than a guy with a testimony who knows how to copy and paste from FAIR's website. I probably shouldn't be too hard on him. I was the same guy not that long ago.

I've also copied and pasted from the actual study to argue my points. I simply don't see the reasoning behind the dogmatic statements made by critics here, since some studies, the Linzi study is a good example, render their dogmatism moot.

I hate to characterize it as dogmatism but I can't see it in any other way, since the statements denouncing the Book of Mormon in terms of genetic are bald and unsupported.

Actually, the Linzi study shows that we should definitely find modern native Americans with Semitic DNA, if the Book of Mormon is true.

[_stemelbow]

The only dogmatic behavior seems to be coming from you. If Lehi's group showed up and flourished as the text tells us then yes it is reasonable to expect to see DNA that does not belong to the main DNA of Native Americans. That this has not really happened yet to support Book of Mormon claims causes apologists to run around spouting to more unlikely scenarios of why we do not see what is reasonably expected.

What you say is to be reasonably expected does not square. That’s what I’m terming as dogmatic—your statements that somehow vehemently denounce Book of Mormon claims based on the theories which continue to be argued, about NA origins. Here is some more from that article I’ve linked long ago:
Many scientists date the genetic divergence of modern Native Americans as having arisen from migrations between 10,000 and 15,000 B.C, rather than shortly after 600 B.C. as stated in the Book of Mormon account. Mitochondrial studies of New World DNA have led to vastly discrepant estimates of time of divergence. Ann Gibbons reports: "All this disagreement prompts [Stanford University linguist Dr. Joseph] Greenberg to simply ignore the new mtDNA data. He says: 'Every time, it seems to come to a different conclusion. I've just tended to set aside the mtDNA evidence. I'll wait until they get their act together.'"47
Martin Tanner explains:
"The idea [that] haplogroup X has been in the Americas for 10 to 35 thousand years is based solely upon the assumptions of the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, which include: (1) completely neutral variants, (2) no mutation, (3) no migration, (4) constant near infinite population size, and (5) completely random mate choice. In the Book of Mormon account, most of the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium assumptions are inapplicable. The wilderness journey, the ocean voyage, and the colonization of the New World, result in patterns of genetic selection and DNA migration different from that found in Lehi's home environment. Closely related individuals married and we are dealing with [initially] a very small group, not a nearly infinite population which would dramatically alter DNA marker distribution and inheritance over time. If we take these assumptions about haplogroup X instead of the Hardy-Weinberg assumptions, haplogroup X could have been introduced into the Americas as recently as one to two thousand years ago, far less than the ten to thirty-five thousand years under the Hardy-Weinberg assumptions."48

As you can see, there is plenty of reason to question the assumptions. Instead of seeing the questioning of the assumptions you state the assumptions as 100% fact in your efforts to denounce the Book of Mormon. Its silliness if you ask me. I mean no offense, but such dogmatism is not a progress in discussion so much as an effort to unequivocally state you are right because you say so…sadly.

I think you meant we don't know, but we do know where they lived and when. Semitic groups have inhabited these areas during these times before and after and most add mixing would be from areas closer then ares farther away so we can expect that certain mtDNA from even a broader area should show up. The poor apologetic that all these women came from populations related to eastern Asian populations today may no be impossible but is a little to unlikely to be reasonable.

Edit: I believe it would also be able to see from mtDNA a-d and x that arrived later by looking at the mutations. I believe this is one of the methods used to see if populations have been isolated from each other.

Your assumptions here have been brought up and questioned. The Linzi example is a good one to follow. There is also a very good example in the Icelandic people, that you might have heard about (and would have if you had read the links I’ve offered). On top of all of this, you have yet to show that we can confidently say we know the Genetic make-up of Lehi and co.

More:

The Bible reports some 600,000 able-bodied footmen among the Israelites at the time of the Exodus, in addition to women and children (Exodus 12:37, Numbers. 11:21), suggesting a likely population of at least 2 million. Throughout history, the Jewish population was reconstituted from only a fraction of its former people on at least several occasions, often with considerable influx of non-Jewish genes. Hebrew scholars estimate that the Jewish population had fallen to approximately 300,000 a century after the Babylonian Captivity, increasing to between 2 and 5 million by the time of Christ and falling to less than a million following the Roman-Jewish wars.41 Only a fraction of the Jews returned from Babylon, only a portion of the Palestinian Jews survived the Roman counterattacks leading to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and many Jews perished in European pogroms. The asymmetric nature of all of these events would have resulted in the loss of many "Israelite" genes from the Jewish gene pool. Dr. Robert Pollack observed that Ashkenazi Jews, who constitute 80% of the world Jewish population,42 "descend from a rather small number of families who survived the pogroms of the mid-1600s."43 Geneticist Doron Behar reports that "from an estimated number of ~25,000 in 1300 AD, the Ashkenazi population had grown to more than 8.5 million by the beginning of the 19th century." 44 Daniel Elazar of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs wrote that at the end of the eleventh century, 97% of the world's Jews were Sephardic and only 3% were Ashkenazi.45 He reports that in "the mid-seventeenth century, Sephardim still outnumbered Ashkenazim three to two...The Ashkenazic high point came in 1931 when they constituted nearly 92 percent of world Jewry." Ethnohistory repeatedly documents the amplification of a small subset of precursor DNA in modern Jewish populations, the inevitable loss of many Israelite haplotypes altogether, and the introduction of large amounts of non-Israelite DNA. Such ethnohistoric data resoundingly repudiate critics' assumptions that modern Jewish groups represent a comprehensive and valid control of the genetics of ancient Israel. Dr. Pollack further noted: "Though there are many deleterious versions of genes shared within the Ashkenazic community, there are no DNA sequences common to all Jews and absent from all non-Jews. There is nothing in the human genome that makes or diagnoses a person as a Jew." Historical and genetic evidence suggest that modern Jewish populations cannot possibly contain all of the genetic material present in pre-dispersion Israel, and that few modern Jewish haplotypes are even plausible candidates for ancient Israelite origin.