Lehi's DNA

[_Morley]

Yes, Quasi, it did. Expect your recruitment phone call from FAIR sometime this evening.

I can't wait. I'm working on an explanation of why no Nephite artifacts have been found in the new world. It centers around something Joseph Smith said about treasure moving further into the ground as excavators got close.

Do you think FAIR will offer a salaried position?

Yeah, sure, Quasi. Um, your treasures will be laid up in heaven.

We've probably completely derailed the thread by now. Whoops. Sorry, Buffalo.

[_Quasimodo]

Yeah, sure, Quasi. Um, your treasures will be laid up in heaven.

We've probably completely derailed the thread by now. Whoops. Sorry, Buffalo.

LOL! My apologies to Buff, as well. I've been known to derail threads before. It's not intentional, I just can't help myself. There must be a twelve step program for that, somewhere.

[_Buffalo]

Stem, think of it this way. Geneticists can trace the incorporation of European DNA into the the Native American Population. They can see that it doesn't go past pre-columbian times. The can detect, as you say, Viking and Native American DNA in Iceland, and when it was introduced. If a group of foreigners came to the Americas around 600 BC, they'd be able to detect that too, regardless of which particular DNA group they belonged to - any outsider DNA would be detected. That's my point.

So the whole argument that we don't know what Lehi's DNA would look like is really immaterial.

[_stemelbow]

Stem, think of it this way. Geneticists can trace the incorporation of European DNA into the the Native American Population. They can see that it doesn't go past pre-columbian times. The can detect, as you say, Viking and Native American DNA in Iceland, and when it was introduced. If a group of foreigners came to the Americas around 600 BC, they'd be able to detect that too, regardless of which particular DNA group they belonged to - any outsider DNA would be detected. That's my point.

So the whole argument that we don't know what Lehi's DNA would look like is really immaterial.

Admittedly they can't detect viking DNA in the Americas even if they assume there must have been settlements too. The point is, while some things have been able to be detected, other things have not it seems. While there has been cases when they can trace the routes of some populations. there are cases, and this is a most likely since we don't now, that they are unable to define and detect. Indeed, there are those geneticists who have trouble concluding where many populations come from. Jews themselves offer such an example. When you throw in Lehi's "northern Kingdom" claimed decent, and the lack of knowing some of the other decents, also the notion that there was probably a fairly large population already in the Americas with which to mix with, there becomes a lot of questions but no definitive conclusions to draw. In this its not just genetics that causes deficiencies, but also the understanding, or lack thereof due to lack of information given, of Lehi's story itself.

[_Morley]

.... Indeed, there are those geneticists who have trouble concluding where many populations come from. ....

Help me out, Stem. Where did you get this idea?

[_Buffalo]

Stem, think of it this way. Geneticists can trace the incorporation of European DNA into the the Native American Population. They can see that it doesn't go past pre-columbian times. The can detect, as you say, Viking and Native American DNA in Iceland, and when it was introduced. If a group of foreigners came to the Americas around 600 BC, they'd be able to detect that too, regardless of which particular DNA group they belonged to - any outsider DNA would be detected. That's my point.

So the whole argument that we don't know what Lehi's DNA would look like is really immaterial.

Admittedly they can't detect viking DNA in the Americas even if they assume there must have been settlements too. The point is, while some things have been able to be detected, other things have not it seems. While there has been cases when they can trace the routes of some populations. there are cases, and this is a most likely since we don't now, that they are unable to define and detect. Indeed, there are those geneticists who have trouble concluding where many populations come from. Jews themselves offer such an example. When you throw in Lehi's "northern Kingdom" claimed decent, and the lack of knowing some of the other decents, also the notion that there was probably a fairly large population already in the Americas with which to mix with, there becomes a lot of questions but no definitive conclusions to draw. In this its not just genetics that causes deficiencies, but also the understanding, or lack thereof due to lack of information given, of Lehi's story itself.

The Vikings didn't come to stay permanently - the Vikings were raiders. The Nephites came and stayed for 1000 years, and grew to populations in the millions.

The "Northern Kingdom" thing is a red herring. First, Semtic DNA is Semitic DNA. There are certain markers from the middle east - finding any of them in Amerindian populations would be a tremendous find. They've found none. It's like claiming that the O'Dohertys would have totally different DNA type than the Doyles because they're different families - but their both Irish. They'd be similar, even if not identical.

Second, it doesn't matter if the Northern Kingdom were descended from the Portuguese or the Dutch, they'd still be foreign to Native American populations and their introduction into the bloodline would be easily detectable.

And what's more, you're smart enough to know I'm right.

[_jon]

Whilst Mr Smith was actively and frequently trying to leave a genetic residue behind, why would we expect to find one from a figment of his imagination?

[_stemelbow]

Help me out, Stem. Where did you get this idea?

Mostly by reading source material as people brought this question (related to the Book of Mormon and its claimed middle eastern origin of some people) to the fore.

Normally you'll see the best and most pronounced conclusions along these lines: "Recent genetic research has greatly expanded our understanding of the probable origins and distinct geographic patterns of certain groups of people, including Jews. This recent research has superceded some of the earlier studies on Jewish DNA, allowing a reassessment of the theories of Jewish origins in light of this new research. "

From: http://www.jogg.information/11/coffman.htm

Its all "probable", "Possible", "likely", "appears" and such. There isn't a lot of definitive speak on this front. If you follow the link you can read about Jewish DNA studies and see much the same in these terms...while it appears Jews have been a focus of study in the realm of genetics for quite some time. It seems they haven't quite firmed up a whole lot on that front.

Future molecular studies of ancient populations will help us discover the places and times of human diversification and the migration routes of ancient populations.

from: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/9/1396.full

As it is, future studies will help to discover some of the questions that are being uncovered, in terms of migrating peoples and their origins. I don't know of too many studies that went the route of this last one in which actual samples from different purported eras were compared. It was quite fascinating. Much could be said on this for Jewish origins too, I'd think.

Here is Dr. John Butler's take on a study conducted in Iceland (I know he's Mormon so you're probably already biased against his take but here it is anyway):

An interesting study reported in the June 2003 issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics leads me to believe that it is possible for Book of Mormon peoples to be ancestors of modern Native Americans and yet not be easily detected using traditional Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA tests. This study, conducted by a group of scientists from a company called deCODE Genetics, used the extensive genealogies of people from Iceland combined with probably the most massive population study ever performed. They traced the matrilineal and patrilineal ancestry of all 131,060 Icelanders born after 1972 back to two cohorts of ancestors, one born between 1848 and 1892 and the other between 1798 and 1742.

Examining the same Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA markers used in other genetic studies, these 131,060 Icelanders revealed highly skewed distributions of descendants to ancestors, with the vast majority of potential ancestors contributing one or no descendants and a minority of ancestors contributing large numbers of descendants. In other words, the majority of people living today in Iceland had ancestors living only 150 years ago that could not be detected based on the Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA tests being performed yet the genealogical records exist showing that these people lived and were real ancestors. To the point at hand, if many documented ancestors of 150 years ago cannot be seen with Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA tests from modern Iceland, then the possibility can exist for people that are reported in the Book of Mormon to have migrated to the Americas over 2600 years ago and yet not have detectable genetic signatures today.

Here's a link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180299/

[_stemelbow]

Help me out, Stem. Where did you get this idea?

Mostly by reading source material as people brought this question (related to the Book of Mormon and its claimed middle eastern origin of some people) to the fore.

Normally you'll see the best and most pronounced conclusions along these lines: "Recent genetic research has greatly expanded our understanding of the probable origins and distinct geographic patterns of certain groups of people, including Jews. This recent research has superceded some of the earlier studies on Jewish DNA, allowing a reassessment of the theories of Jewish origins in light of this new research. "

From: http://www.jogg.information/11/coffman.htm

Its all "probable", "Possible", "likely", "appears" and such. There isn't a lot of definitive speak on this front. If you follow the link you can read about Jewish DNA studies and see much the same in these terms...while it appears Jews have been a focus of study in the realm of genetics for quite some time. It seems they haven't quite firmed up a whole lot on that front.

Future molecular studies of ancient populations will help us discover the places and times of human diversification and the migration routes of ancient populations.

from: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/9/1396.full

As it is, future studies will help to discover some of the questions that are being uncovered, in terms of migrating peoples and their origins. I don't know of too many studies that went the route of this last one in which actual samples from different purported eras were compared. It was quite fascinating. Much could be said on this for Jewish origins too, I'd think.

Here is Dr. John Butler's take on a study conducted in Iceland (I know he's Mormon so you're probably already biased against his take but here it is anyway):

An interesting study reported in the June 2003 issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics leads me to believe that it is possible for Book of Mormon peoples to be ancestors of modern Native Americans and yet not be easily detected using traditional Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA tests. This study, conducted by a group of scientists from a company called deCODE Genetics, used the extensive genealogies of people from Iceland combined with probably the most massive population study ever performed. They traced the matrilineal and patrilineal ancestry of all 131,060 Icelanders born after 1972 back to two cohorts of ancestors, one born between 1848 and 1892 and the other between 1798 and 1742.

Examining the same Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA markers used in other genetic studies, these 131,060 Icelanders revealed highly skewed distributions of descendants to ancestors, with the vast majority of potential ancestors contributing one or no descendants and a minority of ancestors contributing large numbers of descendants. In other words, the majority of people living today in Iceland had ancestors living only 150 years ago that could not be detected based on the Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA tests being performed yet the genealogical records exist showing that these people lived and were real ancestors. To the point at hand, if many documented ancestors of 150 years ago cannot be seen with Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA tests from modern Iceland, then the possibility can exist for people that are reported in the Book of Mormon to have migrated to the Americas over 2600 years ago and yet not have detectable genetic signatures today.

Here's a link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180299/

[_Morley]

Help me out, Stem. Where did you get this idea?

Mostly by reading source material as people brought this question (related to the Book of Mormon and its claimed middle eastern origin of some people) to the fore.

Normally you'll see the best and most pronounced conclusions along these lines: "Recent genetic research has greatly expanded our understanding of the probable origins and distinct geographic patterns of certain groups of people, including Jews. This recent research has superceded some of the earlier studies on Jewish DNA, allowing a reassessment of the theories of Jewish origins in light of this new research. "

From: http://www.jogg.information/11/coffman.htm

Its all "probable", "Possible", "likely", "appears" and such. There isn't a lot of definitive speak on this front. If you follow the link you can read about Jewish DNA studies and see much the same in these terms...while it appears Jews have been a focus of study in the realm of genetics for quite some time. It seems they haven't quite firmed up a whole lot on that front.

Where does this article suggest that that "geneticists [are] have[ing] trouble concluding where many populations come from"?

" 'Probable,' 'possible,' 'likely,' 'appears,' and such," are all words used in science. Never do the authors suggest that they are having trouble "concluding" where the studied populations (in this case, Jews) "come from." Your suggestion that they are having trouble is (to say the least) misleading.

Even outside of a scientific context, if I say it appears to be raining, or that it is probable that it is raining, it does not mean that I'm having a hard determining if it is raining. (Nor does it, if I say it's raining hard enough, that it's possible that we'll have a flood.)

I'm not even going to address your cut and paste from FARMS, right now. Perhaps someone else will.

Edited punctuation.