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

[The Before]

…

Marcus, I did read that part of the commentary about an event that happened in 1998, but I didn’t comment on it because the incident occurred almost thirty years ago.

Where I think this goes too far is the repeated conclusion that Perego is lying. A lie isn’t simply a statement we think is wrong, misleading, poorly qualified, or apologetically motivated. It requires knowing that a claim is false and deliberately presenting it as true. That is a much harder case to establish than showing that two statements appear to be in tension.

First up, the audience for my posts are not interested in long drawn-out explanations for all of the points I am making. I deliberately trim them so more people read them. I don't care if apologists nitpick over things I say (like my outrageous (true) claim that David Reich discovered Denisovan DNA /s) because they are hardwired to do that. If you want to get in a drawn-out dissection of everything I have written then I will disappoint you. But I will respond to a couple of your comments.

For example, saying that Lehi’s lineage could theoretically fall within a lineage already present in the Americas is not the same as claiming that one of the founding Native American haplogroups originated with Lehi. If a lineage existed thousands of years before Lehi, that obviously means the lineage itself cannot be evidence for Lehi. But a later immigrant could still possess that same broad haplogroup. Whether that possibility is useful apologetically is another question.

There are five founding mitochondrial DNA lineages found in Native Americans. Lineages A, B, C, D and X (X2a). Ugo Perego was an author on two papers that accurately dated how long these lineages have been present in the Americas.
Achilli et al 2008. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18335039/
Perego et al. 2009. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19135370/

In Achille et al. They estimated the age of the lineages to be 18,000 to 21,000 years. Their “estimate indicates a human entry and spread of the pan-American haplogroups into the Americas right after the peak of the Last Glacial Maximum and comfortably agrees with the undisputed ages of the earliest Paleoindians in South America.”

In Perego et al. 2009 they determined the age of the X2a and D4h3 lineage families and concluded that the “paths of migration from Beringia led to the Paleo-Indian dispersal approximately 15-17 kya. Haplogroup D4h3 spread into the Americas along the Pacific coast, whereas X2a entered through the ice-free corridor between the Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets.”

Clearly, by 2009 Ugo Perego knew that all 5 founding lineages, which make up over 98% of mitochondrial lineages among Native Americans, originated in Asia over 15,000 years ago. The other 2% are lineages that entered Native American populations through admixture with people of African or European origin.

Ugo Perego knows that the A, B, C, D, and X lineages are not found in the Middle East. They are Asian lineages. Lehi cannot possibly have carried a 15,000-year-old Asian lineage. But Perego claims in 2014 “It is possible that the DNA of Lehi’s group is one of the most prominent lineages in the American continent but that we do not recognize it as such due to lacking knowledge of their mtDNA profile.” In my view this is extremely deceptive.

Likewise, the ancient West Eurasian ancestry found in Native Americans isn’t evidence for the Book of Mormon, and the Church’s essay actually acknowledges that this ancestry entered the Native American gene pool thousands of years before Book of Mormon times. We can debate whether mentioning it was helpful or potentially confusing, but that seems different from concealing what the science says.

Mormon apologists wet their pants when the author of a National Geographic article reported on Raghaven’s research on the genome of an ancient Siberian child. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24256729/ The NG author claimed “Nearly one-third of Native American genes come from west Eurasian people linked to the Middle East and Europe, rather than entirely from entirely from East Asians as previously thought” according to a newly sequenced genome.” https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... a-genetics

If it wasn’t for this popular science article, Raghaven’s paper would have passed unnoticed by Mormon apologists. Perego knows full well the research is irrelevant to the Book of Mormon because the ancient Siberian remains predate the Book of Mormon by about 18,000 years. But he included it because of its historical apologetic value.

I also wouldn’t say that the Book of Mormon requires Lehi to have a uniquely identifiable “Jewish” genetic signature. The text gives Lehi an Israelite ancestry, but ancient Israelites were populations, not genetically uniform categories, and genealogy and genetic inheritance aren’t interchangeable. After thousands of years, identifying the DNA of one particular Israelite family would be an extraordinarily difficult proposition.

There are no “orphan” mitochondrial DNA lineages among Native Americans that can be connected up to Lehi. They are either Asian, African or European. If Lehi had some weird non-Jewish DNA, it hasn't been found yet.

Regardless, the mitochondrial, Y-chromosome and autosomal DNA of Jewish populations are well characterised and they are easily distinguished from Asian DNA. Clear links can be seen between modern and ancient Jewish populations.

Using the extraordinary power of autosomal DNA, Scientists have detected Jewish DNA throughout South and Central America. But they dated the arrival of this DNA to exactly the same time that Spanish DNA arrived. The Jewish DNA was derived from Converso Jews living on the Iberian Peninsula. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30568240/

The narrower historical model defended by many LDS scholars makes a different claim: that a relatively small Near Eastern population could have entered an already populated hemisphere and eventually left little or no clearly identifiable genetic signal. That proposition shouldn’t be confused with positive genetic evidence for the Book of Mormon. It is an argument about what the existing genetic evidence can and cannot exclude.

I’ve written a pile of posts in response to the limited or vanishing geography models that a few scholars have espoused. I’ve provided some links below. I’m not interested in rehashing them here.

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... _fair_and/

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... _time_for/

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... americans/

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... ieve_that/

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... 9_million/

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... erated_in/

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... tions_how/

Dr. Southerton, if you were referring to my pants: they are quite dry, and I am not an apologist, merely an imetatronik anti-fan.

But, I think this gets us much closer. I agree that Perego knew those dominant Native American lineages were ancient Asian founding lineages.

But I don’t see how that establishes that his 2014 claim was false. An ancient lineage can obviously be carried by someone living thousands of years later, and Perego’s surrounding discussion explicitly argues that geographic ancestry doesn’t guarantee an individual’s uniparental lineage.

So I can see an argument that he’s emphasizing an extraordinarily remote possibility in a potentially misleading way. But “misleading framing” is easier to establish here than “Perego knew this was false.” What specifically makes the scenario genetically impossible rather than merely extremely improbable?

[Marcus]

…

Marcus, I did read that part of the commentary about an event that happened in 1998, but I didn’t comment on it because the incident occurred almost thirty years ago.

Those goalposts do move, don't they?

...I haven’t seen a post by Ugo Perego attacking Simon Southerton, so I suppose I was also curious about the whole thing...

Perego's post accusing Southerton of lying to a general authority and causing a BYU professor to lose their job is still up on Fair's site.

[The Before]

Marcus, I did read that part of the commentary about an event that happened in 1998, but I didn’t comment on it because the incident occurred almost thirty years ago.

Those goalposts do move, don't they?

...I haven’t seen a post by Ugo Perego attacking Simon Southerton, so I suppose I was also curious about the whole thing...

Perego's post accusing Southerton of lying to a general authority and causing a BYU professor to lose their job is still up on Fair's site.

Oh, yes, they should remove that. They should never have posted that. It seems like a private matter.

[simon southerton]

Dr. Southerton, if you were referring to my pants: they are quite dry, and I am not an apologist, merely an imetatronik anti-fan.

But, I think this gets us much closer. I agree that Perego knew those dominant Native American lineages were ancient Asian founding lineages.

But I don’t see how that establishes that his 2014 claim was false. An ancient lineage can obviously be carried by someone living thousands of years later, and Perego’s surrounding discussion explicitly argues that geographic ancestry doesn’t guarantee an individual’s uniparental lineage.

The four Pan American Native American lineages (A-D) are a subset of Asian A-D lineages. The ancestral X2a lineage hasn't been found in Asia. So all 5 Native American lineages are not found outside of the Americas. The only way Lehi could have possessed one of these lineages would be to have ancesters who crossed the Bering Strait about 20,000 years ago.

Even if Asian A-D lineages miraculously travelled over 4,000 miles to Israel 2600 years ago, they would be very different A-D lineages than the ones found among Native Americans.

Right now I don't know how much plainer I can be.

[Gadianton]

it has only just occurred to me that I’m a complete stranger on your discussion board here. How I came to learn of this place is, shall we say, a shared love of the lolcow “imetatronink.”

That is ... unlikely.

Suppose, for the sake of the discussion here, that you had posted on this board under other monikers, and suppose this were a fake backstory -- would that constitute a lie?

[The Before]

it has only just occurred to me that I’m a complete stranger on your discussion board here. How I came to learn of this place is, shall we say, a shared love of the lolcow “imetatronink.”

That is ... unlikely.

Suppose, for the sake of the discussion here, that you had posted on this board under other monikers, and suppose this were a fake backstory -- would that constitute a lie?

Yes, a lie of the most dastardly kind.

The thread that brought me here appeared on my Google search; something about the imagination of WS.

Dr. Southerton has quenched most of my curiosity in this thread. Thanks, Simon.

[Marcus]

it has only just occurred to me that I’m a complete stranger on your discussion board here. How I came to learn of this place is, shall we say, a shared love of the lolcow “imetatronink.”

That is ... unlikely.

Mm hmm.

[I Have Questions]

You say that 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.” Is “false”. Are you saying then that you retain the DNA in your genome from ALL 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th…(and so on) generation ancestors?

No, I did not say that.

Yes you did. In the OP you said

He has claimed that a person’s genome only retains DNA from about 12 percent of their 1,024 genealogical ancestors at ten generations[6] and “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.”[7] Both claims are false.

8. Falsely claims that I deliberately hurt Scott Woodward’s career at BYU

When I was struggling with the DNA evidence in 1998, I briefly corresponded via email with BYU Professor Scott R. Woodward. Scott told me he had tested the mitochondrial DNA of about 5,500 Native Americans from Peru and found that 98% were derived from Asia. He defended the Book of Mormon on the basis of the Limited Geography Theory that was accepted by some scholars at BYU. A few months later I shared this correspondence with an Area leader who had requested a copy.

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

[Physics Guy]

You say that 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.” Is “false”. Are you saying then that you retain the DNA in your genome from ALL 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th…(and so on) generation ancestors?

When Simon says he did not say that, I think he is answering the question in your second sentence, not denying that he wrote the first part in which he called Perego's statements false. I admit that the "did not" tense is confusing; matching the present tense of your question with "I am not saying that" might have made it clearer. In his same response, though, immediately following "I did not say that", Simon went on to acknowledge that distant ancestors do drop out of our DNA. So for me this makes Simon's meaning clear.

Simon's beef with Perego seems to me to be not that Perego says that DNA loss happens when it doesn't, because it does, but that Perego significantly exaggerates how fast the ancestors drop out. "It is increasingly likely around 6+ generations back that you have no DNA ... from many ... ancestors" is kind of vague, but for me it still takes a lot of weaseling to reconcile it with the fact that at 6 generations you are likely to have DNA from all of your ancestors, and from nearly half of them at ten generations. That's not what I think a reasonable person would infer from Perego's statement.

And I don't think this is just an academic quibble over a possible careless slip on Perego's part. Perego's statements were made in works that were precisely about the relationship between the Book of Mormon and DNA evidence, and the implications for the Book of Mormon of finding no Middle Eastern DNA in Native Americans now, when the Book of Mormon portrays large Lamanite populations in the Americas after AD 400, depend critically on just how many generations it takes for DNA to be lost. At least by my estimate, the available time span between the end of the Book of Mormon and the present day is only about eight to ten generations. So for the Book of Mormon to dodge the DNA bullet, it seems to me that DNA has to fade out of a genome at least as fast as Perego claims it does. Apparently it doesn't actually fade out nearly that fast.

Does this mean that Perego has to be lying? Well, he's defending the Book of Mormon against DNA evidence, and I reckon his case is like contesting a speeding ticket for going seventy in a fifty zone by saying you were only going forty-plus. If you weren't specifically trying to beat a ticket for going over fifty, then maybe describing seventy as "forty-plus" could be let slide as mere excessive vagueness, but in the context of contesting a ticket for exceeding fifty, I think we have to be stricter than that. If the truth is that you were doing seventy, calling it "just forty-plus" counts as lying, even if you weren't doing ninety.

In this case I think that the context also makes it hard for Perego to plead innocent ignorance rather than deliberate deception. Suppose I told you that I am a professor of physics, and I really know this stuff, and the Sun is definitely 10% ionized iron. In fact this is nowhere near true. If I had only said, "I like reading about stars on the internet and guess what ...", then my statement could indeed have been an innocent error, but by prefacing it as I did, with a claim to authority, I wasn't just saying that the Sun is 10% iron: I was saying that I had competently verified that it is 10% iron. Even if at the time I did kind of figure that the Sun contained so much iron, I couldn't have properly verified it, because it just isn't true—and I would have had to know at the time that I hadn't properly verified it. So my statement would have been an outright lie, because of its claim to authority, even if it could otherwise have been an innocent error.

I don't want to put words in Simon's mouth. This is just how I read his posts.

[I Have Questions]

You say that 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.” Is “false”. Are you saying then that you retain the DNA in your genome from ALL 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th…(and so on) generation ancestors?

When Simon says he did not say that, I think he is answering the question in your second sentence, not denying that he wrote the first part in which he called Perego's statements false. I admit that the "did not" tense is confusing; matching the present tense of your question with "I am not saying that" might have made it clearer. In his same response, though, immediately following "I did not say that", Simon went on to acknowledge that distant ancestors do drop out of our DNA. So for me this makes Simon's meaning clear.

Simon's beef with Perego seems to me to be not that Perego says that DNA loss happens when it doesn't, because it does, but that Perego significantly exaggerates how fast the ancestors drop out. "It is increasingly likely around 6+ generations back that you have no DNA ... from many ... ancestors" is kind of vague, but for me it still takes a lot of weaseling to reconcile it with the fact that at 6 generations you are likely to have DNA from all of your ancestors, and from nearly half of them at ten generations. That's not what I think a reasonable person would infer from Perego's statement.

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”.