Excellent takedown of Mopologist DNA misinformation

[MG 2.0]

Kevin Barney has been around a lot longer than most of you folks. He is prolific in his writing. At the very LEAST, worth reading and listening to.

https://bycommonconsent.com/author/klbarney/

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

You simply cannot make this up.

There we go again. As though this is any kind of a good argument about ANYTHING. Just posturing. Rinse and repeat. Hey! How about join in the conversation. Go back and answer some of the questions I've thrown your way. Sound like a plan?

Regards,
MG

Post a quote from one of the geneticists you mentioned that rebuts what Southerton says in the OP. Once you’ve done that, which was the first thing that was asked, then, and only then, should you expect people to take the time to respond to your questions. Stop being so damn lazy, post the quote or admit you haven’t got one.

[MG 2.0]

There we go again. As though this is any kind of a good argument about ANYTHING. Just posturing. Rinse and repeat. Hey! How about join in the conversation. Go back and answer some of the questions I've thrown your way. Sound like a plan?

Regards,
MG

Post a quote from one of the geneticists you mentioned that rebuts what Southerton says in the OP. Once you’ve done that, which was the first thing that was asked, then, and only then, should you expect people to take the time to respond to your questions. Stop being so damn lazy, post the quote or admit you haven’t got one.

The main go to guy, as you know, is Dr. Ugo Perego. In this church approved essay he makes his case:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... s?lang=eng

Genetic Drift
Genetic drift is the gradual loss of genetic markers in small populations due to random events. A simple illustration is often used to teach this concept:

Fill a jar with 20 marbles—10 red, 10 blue. The jar represents a population, and the marbles represent people with different genetic profiles. Draw a marble at random from this population, record its color, and place it back in the jar. Each draw represents the birth of a child. Draw 20 times to simulate a new generation within the population. The second generation could have an equal number of each color, but more likely it will have an uneven number of the two colors.

Before you draw a third generation, adjust the proportion of each color in the jar to reflect the new mix of genetic profiles in the gene pool. As you continue drawing, the now-uneven mix will lead to ever more frequent draws of the dominant color. Over several generations, this “drift” toward one color will almost certainly result in the disappearance of the other color.

This exercise illustrates the inheritance pattern of genetic material over the course of several generations and shows how drift can result in the loss of genetic profiles. The effect of drift is especially pronounced in small, isolated populations or in cases where a small group carrying a distinct genetic profile intermingles with a much larger population of a different lineage.

A study in Iceland combining both genetic and genealogical data demonstrates that the majority of people living in that country today inherited mitochondrial DNA from just a small percentage of the people who lived there only 300 years ago. The mitochondrial DNA of the majority of Icelanders living at that time simply did not survive the random effects of drift. It is conceivable that much of the DNA of Book of Mormon peoples did not survive for the same reason.

Genetic drift particularly affects mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA, but it also leads to the loss of variation in autosomal DNA. When a small population mixes with a large one, combinations of autosomal markers typical of the smaller group become rapidly overwhelmed or swamped by those of the larger. The smaller group’s markers soon become rare in the combined population and may go extinct due to the effects of genetic drift and bottlenecks as described above. Moreover, the shuffling and recombination of autosomal DNA from generation to generation produces new combinations of markers in which the predominant genetic signal comes from the larger original population. This can make the combinations of markers characteristic of the smaller group so diluted that they cannot be reliably identified.

The authors of a 2008 paper in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology summarized the impact of these forces succinctly: “Genetic drift has been a significant force [on Native American genetics], and together with a major population crash after European contact, has altered haplogroup frequencies and caused the loss of many haplotypes.” Genetic profiles may be entirely lost, and combinations that once existed may become so diluted that they are difficult to detect. Thus, portions of a population may in fact be related genealogically to an individual or group but not have DNA that can be identified as belonging to those ancestors. In other words, Native Americans whose ancestors include Book of Mormon peoples may not be able to confirm that relationship using their DNA.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... s?lang=eng

Question: Does Simon Southerton neglect or dismisses the population genetic factors that cause genetic markers to vanish or become undetectable over centuries? If not, would you explain in detail or link to a specific segment/part of any presentation that he has given that details his overwhelming evidence against genetic drift?

Dr. Perego is molecular biologist and population geneticist whose expertise lies in human genetics, population migrations, and genetic genealogy. Is this where Simon Southerton's expertise also lies?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Just to repeat, I think Kevin Barney's intellectual prowess is not to be ignored. My guess is that there are many here who had never heard of him.

Oh, by the way IHQ, are you a population/human geneticist? A Ph.D in the field? Dr. Perego has a Ph.D. in Human Genetics and Biomolecular Sciences from the University of Pavia. Umm... why are we listening to you as an authority? Not that I am...but some gullible person might be.

I do have to say, it would be fun to listen to a debate between Perego and Southerton.

Regards,
MG

[huckelberry]

I suppose MG could have introduced this link with more detail but MG does clearly suggest what it is about. In a way this threads opening post introduces it because it contains reply to Kevin Barney's observations. Well Kevin presents them with an air of finality. The Book of Mormon is a lineage history so doesn't discuss Mayans and we don't know where it happened.

Base on your comment i looked at the second link and got to about the third paragraph.

Now, I’m not a geneticist, and I doubt many of you are, either. But here’s the thing: neither is Thomas Faulk, and neither is Jeremy Runnells, John Dehlin, or any of the other critics using this as an attack against our church. When I come up against a topic I’m not trained in, I dive into the research, and I turn to people who are trained. So, I’ll be doing both of those things throughout this section...

But Southerton is, and that's what this thread is about, Southerton's points. Linking to this 2 year old FAIR argument doesn't respond to the OP which was posted last month, and I don't consider it a discussion when he just posts huge links and says 'go learn.' He said he had specific points that refuted the op but he has failed to produce any at all. I predict he will continue to NOT post them, but he WILL post a lengthy complaint about the shortcomings of those who believe differently than he does, which is what a troll does.

Marcus, I am unsure how to leverage an actual discussion into motion here. MG brought up genetic drift, perhaps vague enough to make somebody think maybe that's a reason no trace of Lehi family genes are being found. I am not the genetics expert but a casual look at the subject does not suggest it covers that problem. Perhaps we could bring up Clovis points as another diversion.

Maybe I should hide a little less of the anger or frustration Barney's comments incline me to.

First I feel like I am being pushed around when somebody says I should understand the Book of Mormon is lineage history. How can that be a good understanding of a book containing much much more? Reading myself I felt it reasonable to see a cultural political religious history. I expect to see discussed real world relationships impacting political control and religious belief. One finds that in the Bible despite the heavy handed religious editing. Where is the impact and influence of all those natives? Do not push me around by saying I am making simple fundamentalist type assumptions. Limited Geography does not change this problem but focuses the area of cultural conflict and influence.

How in the sam h did Lehi family become king? ... Well there is no competition except family in the book.

The Book of Mormon has large groups sharing a common culture, religion, and apparently language. So even with intermarriage with some outside folks too poor and weak to mention, the body of Lehi related genes would have grown large. Limited Geography would not be changing that.

[huckelberry]

MG thanks for finally posting the material that you were alluding to. It made better reading than the many postponements.

[I Have Questions]

Post a quote from one of the geneticists you mentioned that rebuts what Southerton says in the OP. Once you’ve done that, which was the first thing that was asked, then, and only then, should you expect people to take the time to respond to your questions. Stop being so damn lazy, post the quote or admit you haven’t got one.

The main go to guy, as you know, is Dr. Ugo Perego. In this church approved essay he makes his case:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... s?lang=eng

Genetic Drift
Genetic drift is the gradual loss of genetic markers in small populations due to random events. A simple illustration is often used to teach this concept:

Fill a jar with 20 marbles—10 red, 10 blue. The jar represents a population, and the marbles represent people with different genetic profiles. Draw a marble at random from this population, record its color, and place it back in the jar. Each draw represents the birth of a child. Draw 20 times to simulate a new generation within the population. The second generation could have an equal number of each color, but more likely it will have an uneven number of the two colors.

Before you draw a third generation, adjust the proportion of each color in the jar to reflect the new mix of genetic profiles in the gene pool. As you continue drawing, the now-uneven mix will lead to ever more frequent draws of the dominant color. Over several generations, this “drift” toward one color will almost certainly result in the disappearance of the other color.

This exercise illustrates the inheritance pattern of genetic material over the course of several generations and shows how drift can result in the loss of genetic profiles. The effect of drift is especially pronounced in small, isolated populations or in cases where a small group carrying a distinct genetic profile intermingles with a much larger population of a different lineage.

A study in Iceland combining both genetic and genealogical data demonstrates that the majority of people living in that country today inherited mitochondrial DNA from just a small percentage of the people who lived there only 300 years ago. The mitochondrial DNA of the majority of Icelanders living at that time simply did not survive the random effects of drift. It is conceivable that much of the DNA of Book of Mormon peoples did not survive for the same reason.

Genetic drift particularly affects mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA, but it also leads to the loss of variation in autosomal DNA. When a small population mixes with a large one, combinations of autosomal markers typical of the smaller group become rapidly overwhelmed or swamped by those of the larger. The smaller group’s markers soon become rare in the combined population and may go extinct due to the effects of genetic drift and bottlenecks as described above. Moreover, the shuffling and recombination of autosomal DNA from generation to generation produces new combinations of markers in which the predominant genetic signal comes from the larger original population. This can make the combinations of markers characteristic of the smaller group so diluted that they cannot be reliably identified.

The authors of a 2008 paper in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology summarized the impact of these forces succinctly: “Genetic drift has been a significant force [on Native American genetics], and together with a major population crash after European contact, has altered haplogroup frequencies and caused the loss of many haplotypes.” Genetic profiles may be entirely lost, and combinations that once existed may become so diluted that they are difficult to detect. Thus, portions of a population may in fact be related genealogically to an individual or group but not have DNA that can be identified as belonging to those ancestors. In other words, Native Americans whose ancestors include Book of Mormon peoples may not be able to confirm that relationship using their DNA.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... s?lang=eng

Question: Does Simon Southerton neglect or dismisses the population genetic factors that cause genetic markers to vanish or become undetectable over centuries? If not, would you explain in detail or link to a specific segment/part of any presentation that he has given that details his overwhelming evidence against genetic drift?

Dr. Perego is molecular biologist and population geneticist whose expertise lies in human genetics, population migrations, and genetic genealogy. Is this where Simon Southerton's expertise also lies?

Regards,
MG

Finally! But also, meh! Unfortunately Ugo’s throwing of the contents of the Book of Mormon under the bus to try and salvage a sliver of “there might be chance”, has already been debunked by Southerton. This link will take you to a thread discussing that debunking. Here’s a sample:

Perego spends most of the interview justifying why we don’t need to be concerned that no trace of Lehi’s DNA has been found. He uses two major lines of reasoning. Firstly, Lehi’s DNA would have been diluted away because they immediately mixed with indigenous populations that vastly outnumbered them. Secondly, the Lamanites were subjected to disease and warfare that wiped out large numbers of them, along with their DNA, after Europeans arrived.

If you have read the Book of Mormon a few times you may be wondering about these indigenous populations Lehi mixed with. Why is there no mention of any mixing with other folk who were already there? Apart from the other Middle Eastern groups, who had also sailed to the New World, there is no mention of these other folk. Perego’s solution to that problem lies in the 116 lost pages. That’s where Nephi would have described in detail how the massive surrounding native population immediately absorbed the descendants of Lehi. They must have been an astonishingly submissive lot because the descendants of Lehi, while completely outnumbered, ruled these merged populations for the next thousand years.

According to Perego its obvious that when Lehi arrived in the Promised Land, he didn’t have the necessary skills to survive very long. They would be dead inside 10 hours according to Perego. It makes perfect sense that as soon as they arrived, they were met by Indigenous Americans who helped them settle in. These people would have immediately intermarried with the Nephite and Lamanite groups. Because they outnumbered them the DNA of Lehi would have been diluted away. Then, later on, successive waves of war and disease, after the arrival of Europeans, would have also contributed to the loss of Lamanite DNA to undetectable levels. It’s remarkable how the science supports this new theory of the disappearance (or non-existence) of Lamanite DNA.

But what about the scriptures that say these migrating groups were sailing to a corner of the earth “kept from the knowledge of other nations”? Perego’s pretzelish solution to this problem is quite novel. Because the New World was so far away from the Old World, any people who were led there were not able to tell the folk back home that they were now colonizing the New World. It was the tyranny of distance that kept the heavily populated New World from the knowledge of the Old World (and from God evidently).

It’s worth noting that Ugo has ditched population genetics in favour of a cushy job overseeing an Institute of Religion in Italy. I think if memory serves me that was the process to get him to stop looking at Joseph Smith's DNA.

Do you have any non Mormon geneticists that you can quote on the topic?

[I Have Questions]

MG thanks for finally posting the material that you were alluding to. It made better reading than the many postponements.

[MG 2.0]

The main go to guy, as you know, is Dr. Ugo Perego. In this church approved essay he makes his case:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... s?lang=eng

Question: Does Simon Southerton neglect or dismisses the population genetic factors that cause genetic markers to vanish or become undetectable over centuries? If not, would you explain in detail or link to a specific segment/part of any presentation that he has given that details his overwhelming evidence against genetic drift?

Dr. Perego is molecular biologist and population geneticist whose expertise lies in human genetics, population migrations, and genetic genealogy. Is this where Simon Southerton's expertise also lies?

Regards,
MG

Finally! But also, meh! Unfortunately Ugo’s throwing of the contents of the Book of Mormon under the bus to try and salvage a sliver of “there might be chance”, has already been debunked by Southerton. This link will take you to a thread discussing that debunking. Here’s a sample:

Perego spends most of the interview justifying why we don’t need to be concerned that no trace of Lehi’s DNA has been found. He uses two major lines of reasoning. Firstly, Lehi’s DNA would have been diluted away because they immediately mixed with indigenous populations that vastly outnumbered them. Secondly, the Lamanites were subjected to disease and warfare that wiped out large numbers of them, along with their DNA, after Europeans arrived.

If you have read the Book of Mormon a few times you may be wondering about these indigenous populations Lehi mixed with. Why is there no mention of any mixing with other folk who were already there? Apart from the other Middle Eastern groups, who had also sailed to the New World, there is no mention of these other folk. Perego’s solution to that problem lies in the 116 lost pages. That’s where Nephi would have described in detail how the massive surrounding native population immediately absorbed the descendants of Lehi. They must have been an astonishingly submissive lot because the descendants of Lehi, while completely outnumbered, ruled these merged populations for the next thousand years.

According to Perego its obvious that when Lehi arrived in the Promised Land, he didn’t have the necessary skills to survive very long. They would be dead inside 10 hours according to Perego. It makes perfect sense that as soon as they arrived, they were met by Indigenous Americans who helped them settle in. These people would have immediately intermarried with the Nephite and Lamanite groups. Because they outnumbered them the DNA of Lehi would have been diluted away. Then, later on, successive waves of war and disease, after the arrival of Europeans, would have also contributed to the loss of Lamanite DNA to undetectable levels. It’s remarkable how the science supports this new theory of the disappearance (or non-existence) of Lamanite DNA.

But what about the scriptures that say these migrating groups were sailing to a corner of the earth “kept from the knowledge of other nations”? Perego’s pretzelish solution to this problem is quite novel. Because the New World was so far away from the Old World, any people who were led there were not able to tell the folk back home that they were now colonizing the New World. It was the tyranny of distance that kept the heavily populated New World from the knowledge of the Old World (and from God evidently).

It’s worth noting that Ugo has ditched population genetics in favour of a cushy job overseeing an Institute of Religion in Italy. I think if memory serves me that was the process to get him to stop looking at Joseph Smiths DNA.

Do you have any non Mormon geneticists that you can quote on the topic?

There is really nothing there in your sample. This has all been discussed before. You've done in depth reading on all this, right? It sounds like there are some things you are ignoring or purposely 'forgetting'.

What a brush off. This seems to be the modus operandi of critics that have developed a severe case of tunnel vision. IHQ, I seriously wonder what your qualifications are to dispute the findings of an expert human geneticist as though he was a simple amateur. Then you go with the plant geneticist because he supports YOUR worldview.

To each his or her own I guess.

Regards,
MG

[Rivendale]

Finally! But also, meh! Unfortunately Ugo’s throwing of the contents of the Book of Mormon under the bus to try and salvage a sliver of “there might be chance”, has already been debunked by Southerton. This link will take you to a thread discussing that debunking. Here’s a sample

It’s worth noting that Ugo has ditched population genetics in favour of a cushy job overseeing an Institute of Religion in Italy. I think if memory serves me that was the process to get him to stop looking at Joseph Smiths DNA.

Do you have any non Mormon geneticists that you can quote on the topic?

There is really nothing there in your sample. This has all been discussed before. You've done in depth reading on all this, right? It sounds like there are some things you are ignoring or purposely 'forgetting'.

What a brush off. This seems to be the modus operandi of critics that have developed a severe case of tunnel vision. IHQ, I seriously wonder what your qualifications are to dispute the findings of an expert human geneticist as though he was a simple amateur. Then you go with the plant geneticist because he supports YOUR worldview.

To each his or her own I guess.

Regards,
MG

You believe a rock in a hat transmitted a story over the eons and you are splitting hairs with a plant geneticist over a human geneticist. A human geneticist paid by the church. If Ugo was correct it would change the landscape of human history and it hasn't.