Ugo Perego and John Butler spread misconceptions about DNA science in order to salvage the Book of Mormon

[simon southerton]

Autosomal DNA is by far the richest source of genealogical information for human population genetics research. The 22 autosomes (chromosomes) in the human genome contain millions of genetic markers that can be used to dissect in fine detail the ancestry of human populations and the timing of ancient migrations. Autosomal DNA has revealed our Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestry, traces of Native American DNA in Eastern Polynesia, 100s of ancient admixture events and even traces of Jewish DNA in Latin Americans (see notes at end).

The latest instalment of Book of Mormon apologetics in the face of population genomics is
Let's Talk About Misconceptions with DNA and the Book of Mormon, authored by Ugo A. Perego and John M. Butler (2025).

https://www.deseretbook.com/product/605 ... ItxXicoiDV

In contrast to the entire global scientific community, Perego and Butler argue that uniparental DNA (mitochondrial and Y chromosome) is better suited to uncovering “deep levels of generational inheritance”. Here is the section in their book where they justify this outrageous claim.

Complicating Factors in Genetic Inheritance

Several factors complicate measuring and tracking genetic inheritance.

First, with autosomal DNA, recombination is the biological process that reshuffles parts of the genome at each generation, which generates genetic variation in offspring. This complicates attempts to trace genetic signals back through the generations because one parent’s signal gets merged with the other parent’s, making it difficult to disentangle the two. Second, over many generations, ancestors’ signals will drop out of descendants’ DNA due to random inheritance—the chance involved in the shuffling of segments that results in certain segments being passed on or not. The difficulty of tracing ancestors’ contributions to the genome of present-day people is increasingly difficult as the number of intervening generations grows.

Second, there is a random chance of inheritance with autosomal DNA. In other words, each parent can transmit to each child one or the other of the two DNA sequences that she/he got from her/his parents. This is what allows children with the same parents to have different DNA compositions from one another. This also means that a specific allele from a parent (and by extension from more distant ancestors) may be lost to that portion of the family tree.

Third, occasional spontaneous changes in our DNA, called mutations, happen both randomly and due to environmental factors. These mutations can change the allele that is passed on to the next generation. For example, while a parent may possess an STR allele of 15, their offspring may inherit a 14 or a 16. These are known as copy errors. The greater the number of markers tested, the more likely a mutation will be observed. Markers can have wildly different mutation rates—STRs mutate more than 100,000 times more rapidly than SNPs.

While mutations impact both autosomal DNA and uniparental markers, the latter are not subjected to recombination or random inheritance issues and are thus better suited in making “long-distance” associations into the deep levels of generational inheritance (italics added).

Ironically, it is Perego and Butler who are spreading misconceptions about DNA research. It is a well-established fact than whole genome studies using autosomal DNA are far more powerful than uniparental DNA for tracing human ancestry.

Perego is plainly being dishonest to his Mormon audience, because in a paper he coauthored with John Lindo (2017) he has acknowledged the superiority of autosomal DNA in population genomic studies. Mitochondrial DNA analysis had previously suggested significant population replacement or external gene flow in Pacific Northwest populations during the last 10,300 years. However, analysis of autosomal DNA from four ancient individuals revealed that there was genetic continuity throughout the entire period. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28377518/

Ugo Pergo says one thing in a scientific setting and then the opposite in a Mormon setting.

Ugo Perego also likes to focus attention on how much autosomal DNA is lost in our ancestry. He has previously claimed that a person’s genomic DNA only retains DNA from about 12 percent of their 1,024 genealogical ancestors at ten generations. https://rsc.BYU.edu/reason-faith/findin ... a-analysis. In their latest apologetics Butler and Perego claim “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.”

Both claims are grossly misleading. According to David Reich, the Harvard professor who discovered Denisovan DNA in our ancestry, we are likely to carry DNA from about 500 of our 10th generation ancestors and from all 64 of our 6th generation ancestors. https://heb.fas.harvard.edu/publication ... human-past
You can see an analysis of how many genetic ancestors we have at this link. https://gcbias.org/2013/11/11/how-does- ... over-time/

While making these spurious DNA claims, Ugo Perego neglects to mention that mitochondrial DNA is derived from just one of our 1,024 genealogical ancestors at ten generations ago. By this metric alone autosomal DNA is 500 times more powerful than mitochondrial DNA. While the autosomal DNA of only 4 individuals was studied in the Lindo paper, the scientists were effectively screening 2,000 (4 x 500) ancestors of those four individuals.

I guess some things that Ugo Perego knows are true, are not very useful for Mormons.

Boyd K Packer would be proud of you Ugo.

Notes:
Significant autosomal DNA discoveries
Detected traces of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA (2010) in our family tree. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5100745/
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09710
Identified tiny traces of Zenu (Indigenous Columbian) DNA in Eastern Polynesians (2020). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2487-2
Detected over 100 ancient admixture events as humans have migrated around the world (2014). https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1243518
Detected traces of Semitic DNA derived from the Iberian peninsula in a survey of 6500 Latin Americans (2018). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07748-z

[drumdude]

Ugo Pergo says one thing in a scientific setting and then the opposite in a Mormon setting.

The Mormon audience is credulous and the scientific one is not.

I imagine it has to be rough for all these Mormon apologists who obtained their PhDs with the purpose of proving the church true. Or at least providing some solid evidence that might be compelling to a non-Mormon audience. The PhD holding apologist has to either stop producing apologetic work, or distort the truth. Ugo decided to lie for the church.

[Shulem]

Autosomal DNA is by far the richest source of genealogical information for human population genetics research.

All of this is outside my expertise. I can hardly comment on DNA science lest I make a fool of myself. There is a great deal of information in the opening post whereby I assume few if any of us can carry on a meaningful conversation to that effect. I have greater faith and rely on Southerton far more than I ever would a lying Mormon because Mormons are bred to lie, deceive, and defend their testimonies all the way to the temple altar where many (including myself) swore (prior to 1990) they would die rather than turn on their faith. Mormons are not part of the HONESTY community but are a cancer to society at large, a nontransparent organization that practices deception on so many levels. Mormons will do anything to convince you their Church is true no matter what. Mormonism is one of many religions in this world designed to enslave people and keep them retarded. It's a cult! Its foundations are built on lies and having an evil design beginning with Joseph Smith's lies about anything and everything.

My question for Southerton would center around what the DNA academic community is doing to thwart Mormons who lie about science much like Gee & Muhlestein do about Egyptology? Mormon Egyptologists are a cancer to Egyptology and those men will lie or do anything if they think it will help save the damn Book of Abraham -- a book of fiction made out of the bowels of hell.

[I Have Questions]

It strikes me that Butler and Perego are permanently trying to be half pregnant. They are neither being fully honest with their fellow Latter-day Saints, nor being fully honest about their position with their fellow geneticists. It takes a special person to take an actively deceitful stance in two mutually exclusive camps.

[Shulem]

It strikes me that Butler and Perego are permanently trying to be half pregnant. They are neither being fully honest with their fellow Latter-day Saints, nor being fully honest about their position with their fellow geneticists. It takes a special person to take an actively deceitful stance in two mutually exclusive camps.

Butler is just another lying Mormon, period. The description for the book:

With the lenses of science and faith working on harmony throughout this exploration, this book provides the tools to search out the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and take the question to the Lord ourselves.

Look, they could say the same kind of nonsense for the cursed Book of Abraham and defend the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 as true and how the scientific academic community is not seeing the whole picture. Mormons are liars, all of them. I have never, ever, in my entire life met an honest Mormon. They lie, deflect, and contort things to suit the testimony they are charged to guard.

The Mormon audience is credulous and the scientific one is not.

Recall that a lying retired BYU school teacher (Petersonass) labeled members of this board as being credulous. He failed to read the fine print and misjudged this audience!

I imagine it has to be rough for all these Mormon apologists who obtained their PhDs with the purpose of proving the church true.

Professor John Gee is a classic example of failed academics. He can't seem to come to terms that there is no king's name in Facsimile No. 3 and the hieroglyphic characters above Isis have nothing to do with a king of Egypt. He stubbornly refuses to come to terms that Joseph Smith was blowing air out his ass while making translations he published as divine revelation. Mormon God is like poop gas. It simply stinks.

The Spirit of Mormonism/Interpreter stinks to high heaven!

HOLD YOUR NOSE!



..................stinky

[Dr. Shades]

This is great stuff, Simon. Thank you so much for posting it here for us!

If I made a true statement regarding some aspect of my chosen field, but later lied by contradicting that same statement, I wouldn't be able to live with myself. How do these two do it?

[simon southerton]

Autosomal DNA is by far the richest source of genealogical information for human population genetics research.

All of this is outside my expertise. I can hardly comment on DNA science lest I make a fool of myself. There is a great deal of information in the opening post whereby I assume few if any of us can carry on a meaningful conversation to that effect.

The human genome (autosomal DNA) contains 99.9% of our DNA and over a million DNA markers that can be used to trace ancestry. Each one of these markers will occur at different frequencies or be absent from certain global populations. With modern computer power this huge amount of data can be analysed to accurately trace ancestry.

I've had my DNA tested by the UK company Living DNA. My autosomal DNA shows that significant proportions of my DNA comes from Scotland, Ireland, Yorkshire, Norfolk, Wales and Devon. This aligns perfectly with my paper ancestry. I have recent (4-5 generations back) ancestors from all of those locations. If all of my ancestors had come from Cornwall I am very confident autosomal DNA would show almost 100% of my DNA coming from Cornwall.

My Mitochondrial DNA lineage is lineage H, one of the most common in Europe. The distribution map for H narrows down my maternal ancestry to most of Europe. So the power of mitochondrial DNA to resolve the geographic origin of my ancestors is extremely limited compared to autosomal DNA.

My question for Southerton would center around what the DNA academic community is doing to thwart Mormons who lie about science much like Gee & Muhlestein do about Egyptology? Mormon Egyptologists are a cancer to Egyptology and those men will lie or do anything if they think it will help save the damn Book of Abraham -- a book of fiction made out of the bowels of hell.

Academics outside of Mormonism are rarely willing to waste their energy fighting against the claims of religious nutjobs. However, there are exceptions. Jennifer Raff and Deborah Bolnick have published a paper that exposes the fraudulent claims of Rodney Meldrum.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... 040#d1e191

Unfortunately, most US academics are not prepared to risk their careers challenging the Book of Mormon head on. You never know who is going to be refereeing your next paper or grant application.

If I made a true statement regarding some aspect of my chosen field, but later lied by contradicting that same statement, I wouldn't be able to live with myself. How do these two do it?

I had a scientific colleague named Geoff Downes who's field of expertise was wood science. He was a really nice guy and an expert in his field. He had an excellent understanding of dendrochronology. But he was also a leading proponent of young earth creationism. https://creation.com/en/people/dr-geoff-downes

Geoff literally believed the earth was 7,000 years old and that there was a global flood 4,500 years ago. Fully anchored, continuous tree-ring chronologies go back a little over 11,000 years. We have clonal forests of trees in Australia and the US that are clearly 30-50,000 years old.

I cannot understand how these people do it either. But what I do know is that your security in your religious community and your marriage are powerful motivators for holding conflicting beliefs in your mind.

[Craig Paxton]

Wait Mormon apologists acting like Mormons apologists by distorting the truth? I find that highly unlikely.