ldsfaqs wrote:That's standard DNA science...... A small group entering into a larger group simply would not show save maybe in rare cases. Surprised you don't know this very common DNA fact. Clearly you are reading too much anti-mormonism rather than the actual DNA sciences.
Further, you are aware that VERY FEW natives of the America's have even been tested?
I'm sure if everyone was tested much more so-called Hebrew DNA would be found.
ldsfaqs,
Do you never tire of making an fool of yourself on this board? Are you completely incapable of reading or understanding what is written here? How can you take advantage of the great learning opportunities afforded you here if you simply refuse to pay attention?
Had you read this thread you would have seen that I explained the data on which the strong scientific consensus on this issue is based. That consensus is that there is no pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contribution to the New World Amerindian genome. In other words, the Book of Mormon narrative is pure fiction and fantasy.
There are any number of recently published peer reviewed scientific papers that support this consensus. I recently came across a review paper that listed and described more than 50 studies of Native American DNA, all of which were were consistent with, or directly support, the "no hebrew DNA" findings described in Dr. Southerton's book.
In fact, one of the studies referenced below represents thousands of samples that were analyzed by an LDS supported genetics research institute, the results of which support a single population genetic source for pre-Columbian Amerindians.
Evidence that has accumulated since the publication of Dr. Southerton's book, some of which was obtained using next-gen high resolution mtDNA mapping, has been perfectly consistent with his findings.
Again, since you appear to have not been paying attention, please see the statement below concerning the scientific consensus regarding the origin of the pre-Columbian Amerindians.
If you know of any recent and credible peer reviewed papers that find results that are contrary to this consensus, I would be glad to consider them. Until you come up with some evidence, it would probably be better for everyone concerned if you would simply remain silent on this issue.
Below are a few more easily accessed papers that support Dr. Southerton's position.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080313-AP-native-amer.htmlhttp://www.plosone.org/article/information:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000829http://www.plosone.org/article/information:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0001764http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071025160653.htmhttp://www.plosbiology.org/article/information:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030193