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.
Another excellent post AAC!
God will not hold blameless in the last day he who tries to pervert the kingdom of God.
______________________________________________
Little Joey Smith is in a heap of trouble....
DER IZ no FLUFFY!
DER IZ ONLY ZUUUL! ZUUUL I tellz you.
He will take the form of the Sta-Puft marshmallow man...
A.A.C.
FAITH CANNOT ALTER FACTS
Thanks
It struck me sitting here this morning the “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...” argument is frequently and speciously used...
Mostly by liberals.
Let me explain.
Since 1964, we have been waging a “War on Poverty” (thanks LBJ...) and the cost (before zer0dumbo took office) exceeds six trillion dollars to date.
Poverty still seems to be winning, but that doesn’t stop our congresscritters from deflaring that what they really need is to confiscate more of our money to throw into the problem.
Which is kind of like throwing a wad of $500 bills into a blender with some sugar water, and drinking it down.
A really fast approach to pissing away a lot of money.
There is no evidence that the “great society” programs, or the old “new deal” programs have helped any of the problems they purported to address (there are lots of indications that they may in fact hurt all of us), but the ‘critters’ presist in their unsupported belief system asserting basically that the absence of evidence (of effectiveness of programs) is not evidence...
Stem cell research.
Liberal politicians want fetal stem cell research on the table with no limitations whatsoever.
Of course, we all pretty well know they are on the payroll of the abortion mega-industrial complex, one way or another...
To date fetal stem cell research has yielded NO significant scientific breakthroughs.
The major discoveries that offer hope for addressing human disease and deterioration have originated from either “cord blood”, or some other form of adult stem cells.
But the absence of evidence of discoveries/applicability sourced in fetal stem cells is not regarded...
by liberals...
as being (sufficiently) evidence of the ABSENCE of possible effectiveness to be gained by fetal stem cell research.
That is the crux of their continued argument as we know all too well. “Well, nothing has been found in that area of research - YET. But that doesn’t mean nothing will be found in the near future. We are really hopeful...we just need greater funding!”
Libs were long convinced that there was proof of organic life having existed on Mars...
Same tired argumentative approach there, same type of tired old statements being issued by their spokesmouths.
All just angling for more limitless ‘gubbermint’ money.
You would think somebody, somewhere could come up with a better “catchy cliche” in their attempt to undermine the points of those not in total agreement as a means to bolster their own suppositions.
or not
A.A.C.
It’s Still the Cross
Its not conservative or liberal, However theyre defined;
Its not about interpretation, Or the judgment of the mind;
Its the opposite of politics, Power or prestige;
Its about a simple message, And whether we believe.
Its still the cross, Its still the blood of Calvary;
That cleanses sins, And sets the captives free.
Its still the name, The name of Jesus,
That has power to save the lost; Its still the cross.
(As sung by Gold City)
Mere coincidence; GENTILE.
Mere coinky dink.
—MormonDude(There are an awful lot of them surrounding MORMONism - but MY faith in what Joseph Smith and his witnesses started is unwafering!)
Oooooh!!
GC!
With a moniker like yern; you gotta be a Southern Gospel fan!!
How do you feel about the fact that Joey Smith had sex with other men’s wives ???
Often sending the poor dupe on a trumped up “urgent mission” to a far away place to get him out of the way so that Joey would have uninterupted access to the unwilling wife ???
MY faith in what Joseph Smith and his witnesses started is unwafering!)
______________________________________________
And yet neither Joey Smith nor his witnesses had “faith in what Joseph Smith and his witnesses started”
All of the witnesses at some point admitted that they hade lied about the so called gold plates ...
And all of the witnesses became apostates and left the mormon org...
Even Joey Smith himself was “unworthy” and an apostate...
He didnt believe in his own religion...
And when he got himself killed because of his polygamy, he was wearing a pagan medal of Jupiter that had Masonic emblems, around his neck...
And wasnt wearing the mandatory “Joey’s sex club” undies...
With a moniker like yern; you gotta be a Southern Gospel fan!!
___________________________________________
I like any song that mentions Jesus, the name of Jesus, the blood of Jesus, and the Cross...
and anything else to do with salvation through the price of the blood of Jesus...
If it’s watered down, I dont want it...
There’s not enough power to save me...
There are four of us who are ex-mormons who regularly post on these threads. The rest of those who tried to escape have been killed (at least that is what a glowing light in my bedroom told me) < grin>
If there was a civilization that numbered in the millions upon millions from sea to sea that originated from the environs of Israel, then we would have undeniable evidence of it by now.The Mormon rebuttal to our "Position" as stated by someone who is not a Mormon, and has not even read the book he is critiquing:
We do not have undeniable evidence of an advanced Hebrew society in the Americas Therefore, these peoples did not / do not exist.
The Book of Mormon is not specific as to the size of land, it does mention bodies of water, but does not specify "sea to sea", nor does the Book of Mormon say Millions.GZ: Is that simple enough for you DU?
The Book of Mormon says that at the time of Jesus Christs death, the earth in the Americas went through major earthquakes and civilization was essentially destroyed.
Civilization never recovered, From the artifacts that have been found this matches with the Geological and Archeological history of the Americas.
DNA geological studies require three thingsA note to me, the Mulekites actually married in to the Nephites, but since the two intermingle at the time of Christ it's a moot point, but fix your page DU...Most genetic researches concerning the Book of Mormon assume the Book of Mormon says the ancestors of the American Indians meet these criteria, lets actually examine what the Book of Mormon says instead of "assuming".
- A Pure genetic sample starting from a common ancestor group.
- A genetically conservative group when living apart.
- A genetically conservative group also from the same ancestor group for comparison.
Supposition # 1, A Pure genetic sample starting from a common ancestor group:Supposition #2 A genetically conservative group When living apart:
- Lehi is a descendant of Joseph (Lets ignore to the end the fact that Joseph and Judah were brothers who's mothers while sisters may well have been from different wives (polygamy in the Bible being so common as to be unremarkable and the desire to have the first born married "first" would only matter for inheritance if the daughters were from different mothers)
- Zoram a slave of indeterminate genetic ancestry joined the group as it fled Jerusalem.
- Ishmael, joins the party by invitation, and we are not told his lineage (probably Jewish, but we can't be sure).
- Zoram and Ishmael's genetic code will be passed on as they now have wives and are procreating.
Supposition #3 A genetically conservative group also from the same ancestor group for comparison:
- And they discovered a people, who were called the people of Zarahemla
- Mulekites who came over to the Americas separately married in with the Lamanites
- There were Descendants of Ishmael
- Mormon makes a point of saying he is "a pure descendant of Lehi" as if this was a rare thing.
So, out of three things that are needed to get a match we have one. What should we find when doing this comparison?
- The Jews are a well known genetically conservative group.
- Central Siberia being remote is somewhat genetically conservative, but not as genetically conservative as Jewish DNA.
- Asia is also more genetically conservative, but again not as conservative as Jewish DNA.
We should get different answers with differing samples, and Gee, that's what we get.
MY faith...is unwafering!
______________________________________________________
Subconscious recognition of the inherent puerility of LDS {leavened bread and water} “communion”?
Just wondering. Think I’ll go have a “Waverly wafer”
or maybe not...?
Now I am feeling unwafering
There I go - waffling again.
having fun with a typo.
A.A.C.
(Not wavering in looking to the Saviour’s shed Blood for his salvation.)
So, in mormonism, a “testimony” goes something like this...
“I KNOW THE CHURCH IS TRUE, I KNOW JOSEPH SMITH WAS A PROFIT”
That’s laughable cause even Joey Smith didnt believe that...
In accordance with mormonism, Joey Smith was unworthy and an apostate...
But Joseph Goebbels who was the Minister of Propaganda for the Nazi regime said...
If you tell a lie long enough, it becomes the truth.
And P T Barnum said...
“There’s a sucker born every minute”
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.