Posted on 02/14/2009 6:41:48 PM PST by restornu
Was Hebrew DNA recently found in American Indian populations in South America? According to Scott R. Woodward, executive director of Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, a DNA marker, called the "Cohen modal haplotype," sometimes associated with Hebrew people, has been found in Colombia, Brazil and Bolivia.
But it probably has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon -- at least not directly.
For years several critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and of the Book of Mormon have claimed that the lack of Hebrew DNA markers in living Native American populations is evidence the book can't be true. They say the book's description of ancient immigrations of Israelites is fictional.
"But," said Woodward, "as Hugh Nibley used to say, 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' "
Critic Thomas Murphy, for example, wrote in one article about how the Cohen modal haplotype had been found in the Lemba clan in Africa. The Lemba clan's oral tradition claims it has Jewish ancestors.
Murphy then complained, "If the (Book of Mormon) documented actual Israelite migrations to the New World, then one would expect to find similar evidence to that found in a Lemba clan in one or more Native American populations. Such evidence, however, has not been forthcoming."
Until now.
So will Murphy and other critics use this new evidence of Hebrew DNA markers to prove the Book of Mormon is correct? Probably not. But neither should anyone else.
Why?
According to Woodward, the way critics have used DNA studies to attack the Book of Mormon is "clearly wrong." And it would be equally wrong to use similar DNA evidence to try to prove it.
This is because "not all DNA (evidence) is created equal," Woodward said.
According to Woodward, while forensic DNA (popularized in TV shows like "CSI") looks for the sections of DNA that vary greatly from individual to individual, the sections of DNA used for studying large groups are much smaller and do not change from individual to individual.
Studies using this second type of DNA yield differing levels of reliability or, as Woodward calls it, "resolution."
At a lower resolution the confidence in the results goes down. At higher resolution confidence goes up in the results.
Guess which level of resolution critics of the Book of Mormon use?
The critics' problem now is what they do with the low-resolution discovery of Hebrew DNA in American Indian populations.
For people who believe that the Book of Mormon is a true account, the problem is to resist the temptation to misuse this new discovery.
Woodward says that most likely, when higher-resolution tests are used, we will learn that the Hebrew DNA in native populations can be traced to conquistadors whose ancestors intermarried with Jewish people in Spain or even more modern migrations.
Ironically, it is the misuse of evidence that gave critics fuel to make their DNA arguments in the first place. According to Woodward, the critics are attacking the straw man that all American Indians are only descendants of the migrations described in the Book of Mormon and from no other source.
Although some Latter-day Saints have assumed this was the case, this is not a claim the Book of Mormon itself actually makes. Scholars have argued for more than 50 years that the book allows for the migrations meeting an existing population.
This completely undermines the critics' conclusions. They argue with evangelic zeal that the Book of Mormon demands that no other DNA came to America but from Book of Mormon groups.
Yet, one critic admitted to Woodward that he had never read the Book of Mormon.
Woodward also sees that it is essential to read the Book of Mormon story closely to understand what type of DNA the Book of Mormon people would have had. The Book of Mormon describes different migrations to the New World. The most prominent account is the 600-B.C. departure from Jerusalem of a small group led by a prophet named Lehi. But determining Lehi's DNA is difficult because the book claims he is not even Jewish, but a descendant of the biblical Joseph.
According to Woodward, even if you assume we knew what DNA to look for, finding DNA evidence of Book of Mormon people may be very difficult. When a small group of people intermarry into a large population, the DNA markers that might identify their descendants could entirely disappear -- even though their genealogical descendants could number in the millions.
This means it is possible that almost every American Indian alive today could be genealogically related to Lehi's family but still retain no identifiable DNA marker to prove it. In other words, you could be related genealogically to and perhaps even feel a spiritual kinship with an ancestor but still not have any vestige of his DNA.
Such are the vagaries, ambiguities and mysteries of the study of DNA.
So will we ever find DNA from Lehi's people? Woodward hopes so.
"I don't dismiss the possibility," said Woodward, "but the probability is pretty low."
Woodward speculated about it, imagining he were able to identify pieces of DNA that would be part of Lehi's gene pool. Then, imagine if a match was found in the Native American population.
But even then, Woodward would be cautious. "It could have been other people who share the same (DNA) markers," said Woodward about the imaginary scenario.
"It's an amazingly complex picture. To think that you can prove (group relationships) like you can use DNA to identify a (criminal) is not on the same scale of scientific inquiry."
Like the Book of Mormon itself, from records buried for centuries in the Hill Cumorah, genetic "proof" may remain hid up unto the Lord.
you are assuming again making it personal and mind reading!
________________________________________________
You cut and pasted this from one of the Flying Inman posts to you ????
Humm...when meds are not taking some become flakey!
So it is best I leave them be, and not respond for they do get confused and start to act like liberals.
And you say anti's don't have a sense of humor.
Off to the Loo, then ???
Rightio...
Dear XXX:
I am a Senior Research Scientist in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Queensland, Brisbane Australia. I am also a Latter-day Saint and was until recently serving as a Bishop. A few months ago I came across some DNA research that conflicts strongly with my understanding of Book of Mormon history. I have been communicating with Professor Scott Woodward at BYU about this research. I am writing to you because you are likely to be able to understand the research well because of your molecular experience. I think it will be beneficial for LDS scientists that can appreciate this work to communicate with each other about it.
The research involves RFLP analysis of the mitochondrial (mt) genome of American Indians. The mt genome is used for this type of study because it has a high rate of mutation compared to the nuclear genome. The mt genome is also maternally inherited thus avoiding the complications arising through recombination in each generation. Different mtDNA lineages arise by accumulation of characteristic mutations. These mutations, which can be detected by RFLP or sequencing, can be used to determine the relationships between different human populations.
Over the last 8 years research groups from several labs around the world have been analysing the mtDNA of American Indians. After communicating with several of the leading authors, it is now clear that they agree that in the Americas there are essentially 5 different mtDNA lineages (A, B, C, D and X). The A, B, C and D lineages are also found in Asian populations at low frequencies. They have not been found in Europe. Other lineages such as X6 and X7 have been shown to be derived from the C and D lineages. The X lineage is found at very low levels throughout the Americas and is found at low levels in Europe. It has not yet been found in Asia. The American X lineage is very different to the European X lineage. A paper describing the distribution and phylogenetic analysis of this lineage will be published in the December issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics.
Below are some of the most significant publications in this field. The last three publications describe a genetic link between South Pacific Islanders and South East Asians.
Schurr et al (1990) Amerindian mitochondrial DNAs have rare Asian mutations at high frequencies, suggesting they derived from four primary maternal lineages. American Journal of Human Genetics 46, 613-623.
Merriwether et al (1995) Distribution of the four founding lineage haplotypes in native Americans suggests a single wave of migration for the New World. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 98, 411-430.
Merriwether and Ferrel (1996) The four founding lineage hypothesis for the New World: A critical reevaluation. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 5, 241-246.
Bonatto SL and Salzano FM (1997) Diversity and age of the four major mtDNA haplogroups, and their implications for the peopling of the new world. American Journal of Human Genetics 61, 1413-1423.
Stone AC and Stoneking M. (1998) mtDNA analysis of a prehistoric Oneota population: Implications for the peopling of the New World. American Journal of Human Genetics. 62, 1153-1170.
Hertzberg et al (1989) An Asian-specific 9-bp deletion of mitochondrial DNA is frequently found in Polynesians. American Journal of Human Genetics. 44, 504-510.
Lum et al (1994) Polynesian mitochondrial DNAs reveal three deep maternal lineage clusters. Human Biology 66, 567-590.
Melton et al (1995) Polynesian genetic affinities with Southeast Asian populations as identified by mtDNA analysis. American Journal of Human Genetics 57, 403-414.
The research in these papers strongly suggests that all pre-columbian mtDNA lineages were brought into America over 12,000 years ago. The implication of this is that American Indians are the descendants of Asians. This is reported in a recent issue of a popular science rag (New Scientist, 17th October 1998 pages 24-28). This research conflicts with my understanding of the Book of Mormon. I can’t fit the data with the limited geographical model proposed by some Book of Mormon scholars. It only fits with a disappeared into thin air model.
(Dr Simon Southerton, Department of Biochemistry, University of Queensland, AUSTRALIA)
True, very true. It is not just one line of dna/genetic study that disproves the Lamamite-American Indian myth, but multiple studies such as:
Y-chromosome
mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA)
Polymorphic Alu insertions
Retroviral DNA elements
Intestinal microbial flora
Domesticated animals
To try to account for the lack a any physical, scientifically verifiable evidence, there are at least four theories for accounting where these Nephites/Lamanites resided:
Hemispheric Geographists
Limited Geographists
North American Geographists
Alternative Geographists
Yet the prophetic voice of the mormon presidency remains silent - allowing the unauthorized ramblings of the apologists to scramble everywhere to deflect the mormon sheeple from the truth.
+++++++++++++++++
Ya’ll said there could not be a place called Bountiful because Nephi could not have found iron close enough to the surface to to use to make tools.
Yet new scientific observation has proven that there is at least one place that could meet Nephi’s description.
So ya’ll’s “no place” theory is out the window.
Yet, like many other finds like this, ya’ll will ignore them because they do not match what you want the answer to be.
+++++++++++++++++++
And you wonder why people find you bigoted.
More power to you, just keep following the spirit of the lord and you can’t go wrong.
God bless you for your efforts here.
Well, I may have left some of my DNA in South America as a youth, but I tried to be careful about such things.
“Hus du gezen in deine leben? They darker than us! Woof!”
Wow, how many months did it take for you to catch that? Nice trying to hide your tripe on a formerly closed forum and not allowing for critical examination.
I have posted artifacts (which you dismissed) not gonna bother to repost here.
Artifacts.....lessee, oh yeh, that rock in New Mexico that even LDS investigators rejected. Its discoverer was also a discredited archeologist who falsified field notes and documentation to try to prove his theories were correct. Wow 1 for 1. Lessee.... oh yes, the bat creek stone??? Rejected by archaeologists (Tennessee Anthropologist Vol. XVI, No. 1, Spring 1991) as a fraud. Thats 2 for 2. Lessee, oh yeh, you had some linked to a website that also had ufo and bigfoot reports too. Got any other faith increasing artifactoid you want to dash upon the ground.
In the real world du, all artifacts are not created equal, but they rely upon a multitude of factors. Given the claim in the bom of an extensive, metallurgical advanced culture that numbered in the millions upon millions, not a single real artifact has showed up. Metallurgy (the use of metals) did not appear in the Americas until about the 9th century A.D. However, the Book of Mormon describes the use in America of iron, steel, brass, copper, silver and gold hundreds of years before the birth of Christ. Where are all these fine works DU? How does a rock with poorly copied hebrew and greek in the middle of no where establish the presence of Lamamites? Great cities of stone and concrete leave remnants DU, lots and lots of them found in Central and South America. . . . . with no evidence of hebraic influence. On the contrary, cultures are vastly different. A rock in NM and a fraudulent item can hardly even begin to equate to real archaeological finds and artifacts. Why all the weird animals and plants reported in America DU that have been shown not to exist here during the bom period until Colombus are written all over the bom, however new world animals and foods receive absolutely no mention at all? Yep smittie could spin a yarn, but his lack of education caused him to go off the deep end and dance with curlomes.
It is no wonder that there are multiple competing theories by morg apologists as to where the lands occupied by the Nephites/Lamanites really WERE. That makes it extremely apparent that the artifacts supporting the presence of bom culture here are non-existant. Even Thomas Stuart Ferguson lost his testimony over his search to prove bom archaeology.
Perhaps you need to read statements from real scientists
Smithsonian Statement on the Book of Mormon
National Geographic Letter Regarding The Book Of Mormon
As for the stuff that could be disproved in Joseph's day See This
You waived that dullard beneath my nose a while back. There is absolutely no documentation to his talk. Show me the peer review articles that state that the claims he is making are recognized by the wider archaeological community. (crickets). But since he is in the employment of BYU, he has to speak the party line of face excommunication - isn't that how mormonism has dealt with scientists who've not toed the line on the myth?
Do me a favor F, since that little scientific observation was posted in a caucus forum and unavailable for general comment, why don't you post a summary. I'd love to examine the scientific observations of those folks since you are putting words into my mouth F. Bring it on, I could use a good laugh.
And in all of THESE words, you still said NOTHING about the UNTRUTHFULNESS of PRESBYTERIANism!
Only those to whom the term applies, something like once the prophet has spoken the thinking is done......until the next prophet comes around and changes everything. Pretty common cycle for mormons. Feel sorry for all those who died before the most recent change in temple rites, how are they suppose to know what to do now?
Watch out, for the wolf is at the door.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
