A brief history of the lies of Ugo Perego: the author of the Church’s Book of Mormon and DNA Studies essay.

[simon southerton]

How did the Area leader know about the correspondence, and why did you share private correspondence without seeking Woodward’s approval to do?

The Area leaders put me in touch with Scott Woodward. That's how they knew I was corresponding with him.
Our correspondence wasn't private. My brother-in-law was copied on all of my emails so he had copies of all of Scott's emails. Scott was perfectly comfortable with that. So it seemed reasonable when my Area Leader requested a copy that I provide it. I had no reason to believe it would cause any problem for Scott. That assumption turned out to be incorrect because of the actions of Hinkley.

How do you feel about Ugo Perego's accusation that I lied to a general authority in order to harm Scott Woodward's career? Its been on the FAIR website for over a decade. Why would I want to hurt the career of a fellow scientist? Scott and I were on friendly terms and had been trying to identify an apostle we could talk to about the DNA science. My brother-in-law was fully aware of all our correspondence. Where is the motive?

[Marcus]

No, as a statistician, I disagree. "Some" has a significantly different meaning than "many," in this context from a geneticist, and using it so loosely is not honest.

Taking what's been agreed upon; we already know we have 100% of our 64 ancestors represented in gen 6, and about 50% in gen 10 (~500/1024).

Using simple extrapolation, going from 100% to 50% in 4 generations would mean a loss of 12.5% each generation.

So, 7th generation: loss of 12.5% to 87.5% represented. That loss is not "many" compared to what's retained.

8th gen: loss of 25%, 75% retained. That loss is definitely "some" but stll not "many."

9th gen: loss of 37.5%, 62.5% retained. Still "some" but not "many" unless you add that "many more" were retained.

10th gen: loss of 50%, 50% retained.

Finally, in the 10th generation I might agree "many" ancestors' inputs may have been lost, but only in the context of saying "and many" were retained.

So it's not a quibble, it's a matter of specificity and accuracy one can expect from a geneticist. Especially since "quibbles" like this are time-honored ways for Mormons to ease what the rest of the world considers a lie into their research.

Eta:
Couldn't agree more.

I’ll have a final stab at defending Perego’s statement. When he says “It is increasingly likely around 6+ generations back that you have no DNA in your genome at all from many of your ancestors in that generation.” he is correct that the amount of ancestors DNA dropping out of your genome does increase from zero to “many” as you track back from 7 generations onwards. It may not be “many” at 7 generations but it becomes an increasingly larger proportion with each generation until it reaches the threshold of “many” (whatever proportion is designated by Perego as “many”).

No, i disagree, that's still not an accurate assessment of how one would normally interprete what he's saying, especially in the context in which he states it. The sentence is misleading with the intent of supporting something completely and scientifically insupportable, and I don't have a problem with Southerton saying it is a lie, in contrast with his other statements.

Regarding the review:

...A Dr Antonio Tonneli reviewed the book in which Perego makes that claim, and said “ Although I am not in a position to vouch for the historical and religious aspects presented in this volume, I consider the principles of population genetics and the scientific approach described in this volume by Dr. Ugo Perego and Dr. John Butler as carefully outlined and a useful resource for anyone interested in learning more about ancient expansion and migratory events that contributed to the first peopling of the Americas.”

You're talking about the book put out by Deseret Books, right? Categorized as a religious book, published by the Mormon church? Unvetted by an academic press?

Sorry, I don't find anything from that publisher credible, particularly not unvetted scientific things published in an attempt to support the utterly nonscientific claim of Book of Mormon historicity.

...His main point that Lamanite DNA might have disappeared from today’s population on the basis that 100% of some ancestors DNA drops out of today’s populations DNA is accurate...

I'll let Simon take this one, but based on what I've read, I'm pretty sure that point is not correct.

Just because an individual ancestor may not show up is NOT a scientifically valid reason to conclude that all of the dna from an entire population containing that ancestor plus all related ancestors would disappear.

[simon southerton]

Simon calls Perego’s statement “It is increasingly likely around 6+ generations back that you have no DNA in your genome at all from many of your ancestors in that generation.” false. It isn’t false. The complete loss of all DNA from some ancestors does increase the further you look back from 7th generation ancestors onwards. One might quibble that Perego should have used “some” instead of “many” but that quibble doesn’t make the statement “false”.

Perego's wording is misleading but calling his claim false is too strong a word. I have edited my post to reflect that. The wording "you have no DNA in your genome at all from many of your ancestors in that generation" seems to imply that you don't carry DNA from many in the 6th generation. Clearly, beyond the 6th generation you start to lose ancestors until the 10th generation when about 50% are lost.

In his book "Who We Are and How We Got Here" David Reich has a Figure (4) that illustrates how many of our ancestors at earlier generations contributed to our DNA. When I asked David Reich in an email what the figure was based on he sent me a website link which I cited in my post. The figure below comes from that website. It shows how the percentage of ancestors who contributed DNA to you starts to drop off beyond 6 generations and by the 10th generation only about 50% contribute DNA.

[simon southerton]

It’s worth noting that Perego was writing for a layman, Mormon audience, not presenting a paper to a geneticist convention. Of course he will dumb it down. His main point that Lamanite DNA might have disappeared from today’s population on the basis that 100% of some ancestors DNA drops out of today’s populations DNA is accurate. It is also accurate, within that context, to say that the number of ancestors whose DNA drops out of your own record increases the further back you look. 10 ancestors is, what, a 250 year timespan? Lamanite ancestors would be what 1,500 years ago. Looking over that timespan, many of your ancestors DNA traces would be completely missing. (I think this paragraph is arguably to strongest argument in defence of Perego’s statement).

Its not just Lamanite DNA that has miraculously vanished off the face of the Western Hemisphere. Jaredite DNA and Mulekite DNA has also vanished as well. All three Book of Mormon civilisations were very large. There must have been significant admixture from all three groups. Autosomal DNA would easily pick it up. Its harder to pick up admixture with mtDNA.

[I Have Questions]

Simon calls Perego’s statement “It is increasingly likely around 6+ generations back that you have no DNA in your genome at all from many of your ancestors in that generation.” false. It isn’t false. The complete loss of all DNA from some ancestors does increase the further you look back from 7th generation ancestors onwards. One might quibble that Perego should have used “some” instead of “many” but that quibble doesn’t make the statement “false”.

Perego's wording is misleading but calling his claim false is too strong a word. I have edited my post to reflect that. The wording "you have no DNA in your genome at all from many of your ancestors in that generation" seems to imply that you don't carry DNA from many in the 6th generation. Clearly, beyond the 6th generation you start to lose ancestors until the 10th generation when about 50% are lost.

Fair enough.

In his book "Who We Are and How We Got Here" David Reich has a Figure (4) that illustrates how many of our ancestors at earlier generations contributed to our DNA. When I asked David Reich in an email what the figure was based on he sent me a website link which I cited in my post. The figure below comes from that website. It shows how the percentage of ancestors who contributed DNA to you starts to drop off beyond 6 generations and by the 10th generation only about 50% contribute DNA.

I agree there’s a much more accurate and unambiguous way he could have phrased it. He was, in my opinion, just trying to create a Lamanite sized hole in the DNA record so that faith in the Book of Mormon wasn’t 100% ruled out by DNA science.

[I Have Questions]

It’s worth noting that Perego was writing for a layman, Mormon audience, not presenting a paper to a geneticist convention. Of course he will dumb it down. His main point that Lamanite DNA might have disappeared from today’s population on the basis that 100% of some ancestors DNA drops out of today’s populations DNA is accurate. It is also accurate, within that context, to say that the number of ancestors whose DNA drops out of your own record increases the further back you look. 10 ancestors is, what, a 250 year timespan? Lamanite ancestors would be what 1,500 years ago. Looking over that timespan, many of your ancestors DNA traces would be completely missing. (I think this paragraph is arguably to strongest argument in defence of Perego’s statement).

Its not just Lamanite DNA that has miraculously vanished off the face of the Western Hemisphere. Jaredite DNA and Mulekite DNA has also vanished as well. All three Book of Mormon civilisations were very large. There must have been significant admixture from all three groups. Autosomal DNA would easily pick it up. Its harder to pick up admixture with mtDNA.

Yes but <dons apologist hat> they were many generations earlier and so have had longer to disappear. Especially if they didn’t interbreed with indigenous populations.

[I Have Questions]

How did the Area leader know about the correspondence, and why did you share private correspondence without seeking Woodward’s approval to do?

The Area leaders put me in touch with Scott Woodward. That's how they knew I was corresponding with him.
Our correspondence wasn't private. My brother-in-law was copied on all of my emails so he had copies of all of Scott's emails. Scott was perfectly comfortable with that. So it seemed reasonable when my Area Leader requested a copy that I provide it. I had no reason to believe it would cause any problem for Scott. That assumption turned out to be incorrect because of the actions of Hinkley.

How do you feel about Ugo Perego's accusation that I lied to a general authority in order to harm Scott Woodward's career? Its been on the FAIR website for over a decade. Why would I want to hurt the career of a fellow scientist? Scott and I were on friendly terms and had been trying to identify an apostle we could talk to about the DNA science. My brother-in-law was fully aware of all our correspondence. Where is the motive?

I still think Woodward had an expectation of privacy between the three of you. A simple “Hi Scott, an Area Authority has asked to see copies of our correspondence. Are you okay with him seeing it?” would have been both polite, and an insurance against being accused of stitching him up. Personally I think sharing them with an Area Authority, outside of the 3 people in the email group, without asking him, was a breach of privacy.

I think in your position I’d have been asking him to support that accusation with evidence, or retract it. Had he refused to do so I’d have sent him a legal notice about an intention to sue him for deformation or slander or whatever was an actionable term.

I’d be taking the same position with FAIR.

Have they given any specific examples of you doctoring the emails?

[simon southerton]

Its not just Lamanite DNA that has miraculously vanished off the face of the Western Hemisphere. Jaredite DNA and Mulekite DNA has also vanished as well. All three Book of Mormon civilisations were very large. There must have been significant admixture from all three groups. Autosomal DNA would easily pick it up. Its harder to pick up admixture with mtDNA.

Yes but <dons apologist hat> they were many generations earlier and so have had longer to disappear. Especially if they didn’t interbreed with indigenous populations.

The Americas were widely populated at least 10,000 years ago. The apologetic claim that the Lehites MUST have encountered others and mixed with them must surely apply to the Jaredites and Mulekites, as they were much larger populations.

Time does not necessarily cause DNA to disappear. Humans admixed with Neanderthals and Denisovans tens of thousands of years ago and their DNA can easily be detected today using autosomal DNA. If Middle Easterners contributed DNA to Native American populations, it would be easy to detect it today using autosomal DNA. Low levels of Middle Eastern DNA have been found in indigenous populations all over South and Central America. But it arrived on Spanish galleons.

[simon southerton]

I still think Woodward had an expectation of privacy between the three of you. A simple “Hi Scott, an Area Authority has asked to see copies of our correspondence. Are you okay with him seeing it?” would have been both polite, and an insurance against being accused of stitching him up. Personally I think sharing them with an Area Authority, outside of the 3 people in the email group, without asking him, was a breach of privacy.

All very easy to say with the benefit of hindsight hey? I repeat. I was on good terms with Scott. Our exchange was polite. He had said nothing that could possibly reflect poorly on him. How could I possibly have anticipated that the prophet of the church would sack Scott to hide the DNA evidence from the members of the church.

Can you not see that President Hinckley is the cause of Scott's pain?

Do you believe that I edited Scott's emails to harm his career?

I think in your position I’d have been asking him to support that accusation with evidence, or retract it. Had he refused to do so I’d have sent him a legal notice about an intention to sue him for deformation or slander or whatever was an actionable term.

I’d be taking the same position with FAIR.

Have they given any specific examples of you doctoring the emails?

I wrote to Perego and he blocked me. Perego wouldn't have copies of my email correspondence with Scott. I wrote to FAIR and they ignored me. I'm not interested in what you would have done in my position with the benefit of hindsight.

[I Have Questions]

I still think Woodward had an expectation of privacy between the three of you. A simple “Hi Scott, an Area Authority has asked to see copies of our correspondence. Are you okay with him seeing it?” would have been both polite, and an insurance against being accused of stitching him up. Personally I think sharing them with an Area Authority, outside of the 3 people in the email group, without asking him, was a breach of privacy.

All very easy to say with the benefit of hindsight hey?

Absolutely. I realise I’m being smart after the event with the benefit of hindsight.

I repeat. I was on good terms with Scott. Our exchange was polite. He had said nothing that could possibly reflect poorly on him. How could I possibly have anticipated that the prophet of the church would sack Scott to hide the DNA evidence from the members of the church.

You couldn’t.

Can you not see that President Hinckley is the cause of Scott's pain?

I think Woodward himself shares some responsibility for that. By not covering his own ass by checking with a grown up that what he was sharing was okay in the eyes of the institution that he was employed by, he’s gone out on a limb. Again, I note that this is all with hindsight. His sacking seems to be less about him and more about reducing the credibility of the DNA evidence. Woodward should have known the Church will always throw individuals under the bus when it suits.

Do you believe that I edited Scott's emails to harm his career?

I don’t think it’s about belief. Either you did or you didn’t. I can definitely see a floundering Woodward on the verge of being dismissed trying to save himself by saying you altered the e mails. I will say that I cannot see how you could alter them in such a material way that it resulted in his sacking and which he couldn’t demonstrate by simply showing the original sent email to Hinckley. If Woodward was unable to show Hinckley an unaltered original sent email that was materially less dangerous to the Church, which obviously he wasn’t, then I’d say the suggestion that you had altered the emails to make the content look bad is likely untrue.

I think in your position I’d have been asking him to support that accusation with evidence, or retract it. Had he refused to do so I’d have sent him a legal notice about an intention to sue him for deformation or slander or whatever was an actionable term.

I’d be taking the same position with FAIR.

Have they given any specific examples of you doctoring the emails?

I wrote to Perego and he blocked me. Perego wouldn't have copies of my email correspondence with Scott. I wrote to FAIR and they ignored me. I'm not interested in what you would have done in my position with the benefit of hindsight.

That’s fair enough. I do realise I’m being smart after the event. But that is where we are at. We do have the benefit of hindsight at this point in time.

That said, I’d still go after FAIR right now to either put up the evidence that you tampered with the emails, or take the statement down with a noted retraction.