JW, even if the 1981 introduction isn’t strict canon, it’s de facto canon as are the chapter headings, Topical Guide and Bible Dictionary — everyone in the church uses them and relies on them.

at least the Church could say that the ‘81 intro was technically not canonized scripture

I don’t think the introduction can be considered scripture in any sense, de facto, technical, or in any other way.

Perhaps it feels different to those young enough to have not known a Book of Mormon without the 1981 introduction, but there was no sense in 1981 that the introduction constituted new scripture or new revelation. Introductions come and go.

The Ensign, in announcing the 1981 edition, described a number of features including the new introductions, and then, before discussing changes in the scriptural text, indicated that the “new features mentioned thus far fall into the category of study or enrichment aids. Of equally great interest to the members of the Church are new elements that have been added to the text itself and the work that has been done to make this edition as accurate as possible” –clearly distinguishing “enrichment aids” from the scriptural text.

Unlike scripture, the Introduction is not divided into verses and is never cited in general conference or church materials except rarely as a secondary source for Joseph Smith’s statement that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book.

I agree that by virtue of being bound with scripture, the Introduction does carry some extra weight, but I don’t think it can be regarded as scripture in any real sense. The fact that it is never cited argues against the claim that everyone uses it and relies on it. Mostly it’s used and relied on only by critics who find it a useful rhetorical devise.

It is interesting that lds.org does not show a single hit for the phrase “principal ancestors.”

Ray, Lehi’s maternal line is irrelevant. He is a male and cannot pass on mtDNA. To the best of my understanding, the researchers do not distinguish individual peoples but group the mtDNA and y chromosome clusters by geographic region. If that is correct then it does not matter if the matrilineal lines are Israelite, Egyptian, Phoenician, Assyrian, or even Roman.

While I do agree with you that there is the possibility of “overwhelmed” mtDNA and Y chromosomes, one has to realize that such a chance is very small. It would mean that every patrilineal and matrilineal lines were wiped out.

(There is, of course, the FAIR piece that you linked but their reference to the common Siberian and Israelite mtDNA marker would not be sufficient to establish maternity because arguably one has to assume that the one marker in question comes from the same origin as the other nine markers. Insisting on Israelite origin in the context of the other nine markers leaves a tiny opening but is really clasping at straws, especially in the absence of any other evidence of Israelite links).

Notice, Ray, that the Mulekite mtDNA and Y chromosomes would also be Israelite. There is no indication of interbreeding with non-Israelite populations in the BoM whatsoever. That is only a rationalization, which the facts force upon us but for which the BoM provides no evidence.

Finally, let me point to two recent research successes to link populations to their ancestors over two millennia.

The Boston Globe reviewed Colin Thurbrow’s book The Shadow of the Silk Road. Thurbrow claims that genetic tests linked Chinese residents to their Roman legionary ancestors who arrived there in 54 BC. I have to admit that I am skeptical about this but it’s interesting.

However, I am quite confident in the work of Jeannine Davis-Kimball who was able to link the corpse of an “Amazon” warrior woman who died no later than 330 BC to a living Mongolian girl. Secrets of the Dead screened a fascinating episode about this research.

MtDNA and Y chromosome analysis are powerful tools. After more than 2300 years, Davis-Kimball was able to find a bearer of the identical mtDNA. If the Silk Road story pans out then that would demonstrate that DNA documents a relatively small group of Roman ancestors after some 2000 years. Somebody looking hard and long enough ought to be able to find evidence verifying the testable claims of the Book of Mormon.

I’m not a biologist, but I think you make a good point in #74.

1) Lehi’s own “Israelite” ancestry was maternally Egyptian (Joseph’s wife was Egyptian). Lehi wasn’t devout before he began to prophesy. (changed by hearing prophesy and clueless as to his lineage) Lehi knew how to write in scholarly Egyptian – fluently. (extensive travel to that area or regular communication with that group or raised and educated there) We have no idea if Nephi’s mother was Middle Eastern at all. She very easily could have been Egyptian or from any number of areas where Lehi could have traveled. We simply know very, very little of the genetic make-up of Lehi’s family – and there is a very good chance that it was not primarily Israelite from a purely genetic perspective even at Nephi’s time.

2) Even just the wars mentioned explicitly in the BofM total hundreds of thousands of people killed, and the Nephites ALWAYS were the smallest of the groups described. Mormon never speaks at all about the world of the Lamanites, except to juxtapose them against the Nephites. Therefore, we have NO clue if they mingled with other populations in much the same way the Nephites did with the Mulekites. Furthermore, we only know of the Mulekites because they were discovered by the Naphites. If they had been assimilated in with the Lamanites, we wouldn’t even know of their existence – since they just would have been Lamanites to Mormon. Again, since the Nephites always were the smallest of the groups discussed (even with their assimilation of the Mulekites), it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the Lamanites also were assimilating or being assimilated by other, more populous peoples. Either way, even if their genes quickly were overwhelmed by other genes, they still would have been Lamanite in Mormon’s eyes.

Modern DNA research can’t prove no connection to a large and populous, pure Israelite civilization, much less to a small group that might have had little Israelite blood in the first place – and might have had that diluted greatly almost immediately.

Almost all of the very inconclusive evidence (both ways) rests on assumptions about the original ancestry that can’t be substantiated in the first place, as well as assumptions about the genetic diffusion that also can’t be substantiated. It’s important work – very important, but it’s an exercise in futility to try to prove the historicity of the BofM based on it. At best, it eventually might be able to eliminate some possibilities, but until we know much more about the people and civilizations in the BofM, we will not be able to answer the questions authoritatively – especially when the book itself is read by many as compatible with the largest single migration (the Jaredites) coming from Asia. (I have zero confidence that the entire destructions actually were entire destructions – much like my lack of confidence in the idea that all people in the world paid taxes to Caesar when he decreed that all the world should be taxed – or that all mankind were killed by Noah’s flood.) History is written in the hyperbole of the winner, and scripture is no exception. If even that hyperbole doesn’t give us enough to substantiate a claim, then the reality being hidden by the hyperbole probably will be understood only when all records are revealed during the Millenium.

And my original question: Who is behind the DNA research and is there a book?
Smile!

-And yes, you can “see” evolution, be it by direct observation of microorganisms or fruit flies in the lab, the fossil record, and the DNA record. In fact, the emergence of genetic research has powerfully confirmed the evolutionary paradigm of the life sciences.-

I have no idea how many people lived in the Americas in 600 AD. I have seen an estimate between seventy and seventy-five million for all of the Americas in 1492.

There are some anthropologists, like Jody Hey, that have developed rather sophisticated demographic models to estimate pre-Columbian American populations. It would be fun to take one and calculate estimates but that would probably take me two or three days.

Notice, that doubling populations per century are not unheard of. In the 1750s, England only had five million inhabitants, which means that the population has multiplied by a factor of ten in some 250 years.

With respect to your example, notice that the original population of one million people would already share a small number of Y chromosomes. If we were to sample the two million descendants then we would find a lot more than two people sharing the same Y chromosome.

Then you’d have to assume a total population growth rate of 20% per generation, or around a doubling in population per century. So that would mean that if there were, say, 10 million people in the Americas in 600 B.C, there would have been 20 trillion by the time of Columbus.

Here’s another way to look at it: if a population has one million people, and it grows over the centuries to 2 million people, then on average each of the original males has exactly 2 male patrilineal descendants. The average number of patrilineal descendants today for each male at 600 B.C. is equal to the total population of descendants today divided by the total population at 600 B.C. I don’t think this ratio is anything near 58 million.