tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post114734945559294316..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Q-P36?Jeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-49534329165514777082011-11-09T10:53:43.295-06:002011-11-09T10:53:43.295-06:00Sorry should have edited above before posting... :...Sorry should have edited above before posting... : )JMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-45890829268297757882011-11-09T10:51:41.219-06:002011-11-09T10:51:41.219-06:00Really appreaciated some of the comments. Love Jef...Really appreaciated some of the comments. Love Jeff's work, Doug Forbes, etc.<br />I'm just an amatuer.<br />Since these comments were last posted more information has come out. For me it supports the BoM mroe than ever. Don't have time to post it all (Q-p36 info, some articles sayiing First Americans only share 1% DNA with later, NA Morphology is not Asian, NA DNA in Asia may be from backflow from America to Asia etc) but right now I'm looking for info on the 9-repeat allele. Some Native Americans are using it to support their belief that they didn't come from Asia. 9-repeat isn't found in any Asian populations, but seems to be fairly common in Jews. Anyone know anything about it? <br /><br />I've come across some research on<br /><br /><br /><br />Someone posted a comment almost identical to BYU alter ego on a Michael Ash article on the DN. Seems to be a professional AM.JMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-46824573586108181522008-03-26T17:44:00.000-05:002008-03-26T17:44:00.000-05:00Seeing as it is better to start with the known to ...Seeing as it is better to start with the known to find the unknown, wouldn't it be better to look for a famale line that has a divergence between egypt and israel as that is where joseph had his wife? The question the changes to; is there an mtDNA line sepporated from egypt connected with Israel and found in America with only recent admixtures of it in the rest of the world. <BR/>This is our barried tresure, surely <B>X</B> must mark the spot.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-26555006141964118962007-10-31T19:07:00.000-05:002007-10-31T19:07:00.000-05:004. Alter Ego points out that the Q lineage did not...4. Alter Ego points out that the Q lineage did not originate with the Jews. <BR/><BR/>True, but neither did any other lineage that I am aware of with the possible exception of the “Levite haplotype”. All the main lineage groups such as J, E, R, I, Q, etc originated in prehistoric times as, did more specific lineages such as R1b, R1a, E3b, etc. All of them pre-date the Israelite nation or any other ethnic group in existence today.<BR/><BR/>5. Alter Ego asserts that Q entered the Israelite gene pool after the Diaspora. <BR/><BR/>No scientific study in existence has ever attempted to determine when Q entered the Israelite gene pool. At present, nobody knows when the Q lineage entered the Israelite gene pool. It existed for 17,400 years before Lehi left Jerusalem. There is no particular reason to think that Q only entered the Israelite gene pool in the last 2600 years of its existence as opposed to the first 17,400 years. In all probability Q entered both Europe and the Middle East before it entered America. Why do I say this? From its supposed origin in Kazahkstan or Siberia, Q need only walk south or southwest to find its way into the Mid East and it need only walk due west to get to Europe. Getting to America was a lot more complicated. <BR/><BR/>One more thing - A rare strain of Q called now Q5 or Q-M323 is found in Yemenite Jews. As far as we know now, this branch of Q exists only in Jews. Future discoveries may well find M323 to be more widespread, but so far it has only been found in Jews. The existence of a distinct branch of Q in Jews and only Jews suggests that this branch arose within the Israelite gene pool and that Q* has been in that gene pool for a long, long time.Doug Forbeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12672434922650800374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-2002422364320832252007-10-31T13:35:00.000-05:002007-10-31T13:35:00.000-05:00Sorry to be so late in answering these posts, but ...Sorry to be so late in answering these posts, but I only saw them recently.<BR/><BR/>1. Jeff Lindsey points out correctly that no attempt is made in the 2005 Hammer study to exclude Native American (NA) subject with European ancestry. <BR/><BR/>Although no attempt is made to confirm pre-Columbian ancestry, all Q lineages are presumed to be pre-Columbian. The relative frequency of Q-P36 in NAs and whites is sufficient to support this view. More than 31% of NAs in the US are Q-P36 compared to 0.6% of whites. In Europe Q-P36 is about as rare as it is among the US white population. The European lineages other than Q-P36 in the NA population (R, I, J, etc) are roughly proportionate to their respective frequencies in Europe. I do not know any prominent researcher who doubts that Native American Q-P36 is pre-Columbian. For example, Zegura used Q-P36 for comparison between NA, Siberian and Central Asian populations in his 2004 study.<BR/><BR/>2. Alter Ego says that the 1999 Hammer study included no Native American subjects.<BR/><BR/>True, but I am not aware of any research that includes both Native Americans and Jews and directly compares their DNA. If this is a requirement to draw conclusions about the relationship between the two groups, than no conclusions can be drawn. The Y Chromosome Consortium translates Hammer’s 1999 C1 into a cluster of lineages that include all Q lineages except Q3 as well as some rare R and P lineages. In the current nomenclature it is P*(x Q3, R1b, R1a). Separate studies of Jews and NAs have found the Q-P36 lineage in both groups just as separate studies have failed to find certain MtDNA lineages in both groups. If the latter fact is sufficient to claim NAs and Jews are not closely related maternally, then the former fact is sufficient to claim they are closely related paternally.<BR/><BR/>3. Alter Ego points out that the “hemispheric” view of the BoM is discredited by DNA evidence. <BR/><BR/>I think that is a bold statement given the limited evidence. Consider Puerto Rico (PR). More than 60% of Puerto Ricans have Native American MtDNA. Yet nothing remains of the NA culture; not even their name. Taino and Arawak are European or Carib names for the pre-Columbian people of PR. Genetically PR is about as NA as it is European, but culturally it is totally European or almost totally European with a few African elements. The Lamanites described in the later chapters of the BoM may have been more Jaredite than Lehite genetically. Mormon even introduces himself as a “pure descendant of Lehi” as though that were a distinction. Culturally, however, they were not Jaredite, but a new people.Doug Forbeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12672434922650800374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1148388159969566722006-05-23T07:42:00.000-05:002006-05-23T07:42:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Jeff Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1147978151726403512006-05-18T13:49:00.000-05:002006-05-18T13:49:00.000-05:00Just so this doesn’t take all my time I will no lo...Just so this doesn’t take all my time I will no longer comment after this post so there is no need to try to respond, ‘cause I am not listening. <BR/><BR/>If someone were to write, something pointing how DNA doesn't trump the BoM after all you simply say something to effect of 'They're not being honest' or 'They're not looking at the whole picture. Alternatively, you simply question their credentials. <BR/><BR/>As for the article, I read it and don’t see how it proves or disproves anything. I think we can agree on that. <BR/><BR/>Oh, and I have worked with genetics for quite a while (The Origins of the Native Americans is truly my favorite subject.) and am a convert to the Church. Moreover, I have read a large amount of anti-Mormon marital. The ones I laugh at the most are the DNA arguments. Anyway, as I said, I lack desire and the time to have a long drawn out war of words like most DNA threads have been. I doubt I will even read this thread anymore anyway.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1147975531784664572006-05-18T13:05:00.000-05:002006-05-18T13:05:00.000-05:00If he did you'd only say he wasn't being honest. l...If he did you'd only say he wasn't being honest. <BR/><BR/>lolAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1147445928465745232006-05-12T09:58:00.000-05:002006-05-12T09:58:00.000-05:00Does it really make sense to link descendants of L...Does it really make sense to link descendants of Lehi to Jews anyway? Lehi and Ishmael were not of the tribe of Judah; they were of the tribe of Joseph. Ephraim and Manasseh had an Egyptian mother. Isn’t it all traced through the DNA of the mother? Basically what I’m trying to say is, it should be no surprise if the descendants of Lehi have no Jewish origins.Map Makerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02925986096841704499noreply@blogger.com