Good Arguments for the BofM regarding DNA

[Taq Man]

This is from John Butler. The article is a little old and Southerton has responded in kind but for those unfamiliar with the debate I think its presented in a simple way.

John Butler is a BYU grad and very respected in the world of DNA and Genetics. He is the Hugh Nibley of the life sciences.

There now Archaea can't say I am a one note song.

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/dn...NA_Feb2006.php

[Archaea]

His arguments resonate with me and appear perfectly rational. I have not read Southerton's response to several of his arguments.

This part has always particularly interested me,

Most genetic analysis studies of human history involve comparing a group of samples of living individuals to another group of living individuals without any detailed knowledge of the genealogy of the individuals in the groups being tested. These types of DNA studies make assumptions about the average time for each generation in the past along with a fixed mutation rate whereby genetic variation may occur over time. Similarities in the modern populations examined are then used to claim a shared origin between the two populations with an estimated time for divergence between the populations.
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.6 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.6 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.

I note that Southerton went from interesting to stridently adversarial, and I am sorry that his bishop excommunicated him, whereas Murphy was granted a reprieve. If he hadn't been excommunicated, Southerton might not have become so strident and adversarial.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Archaea

His arguments resonate with me and appear perfectly rational. I have not read Southerton's response to several of his arguments.

This part has always particularly interested me,



I note that Southerton went from interesting to stridently adversarial, and I am sorry that his bishop excommunicated him, whereas Murphy was granted a reprieve. If he hadn't been excommunicated, Southerton might not have become so strident and adversarial.

http://www.irr.org/mit/southerton-response.html
Here is his response.

I think he does a poor job of dismissing the bottleneck effect.

He's basing his arguments based upon this book.
http://books.google.com/books?id=KNY...umbnail&pgis=1

The Seven Daughters of Eve: by Brian Sykes.

I also believes he dismisses the Icelandic study by ignoring it.

[Archaea]

In some of his responses he begins to become downright hostile as if he has a proprietary interest in remaing the debunker of Israelite blood.

I'm not of sufficient scientific significance to determine who is more right than the other, but the tone of Southerton is adversarial.
http://www.irr.org/mit/Southerton-DN...e-to-Parr.html

His rejoinder would be he's responding to somebody attacking him so he has to be.

Nonetheless it looks like one big cluster of grab ass for territorial rights.

[Requiem]

This is also an interesting article re: Polynesian DNA:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/wo...in&oref=slogin

Enough to make one question the conventional wisdom regarding Hagoth...