Hebrew DNA found in South America? [OPEN]

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

ll the "Evidence" assumed the same thing, a pure genetic sample to start with, a genetically conservative people while apart and a genetically conservative people to compare to. You have to have all three to prove anything conclusive, you have maybe one. Ergo, it does not matter if you looked through a microscope and saw a DNA strand that spelled out "We are not the DNA you're looking for!" (Jedi mind trick optional!) it's just not relevant.

Your arguments would not be persuasive to these people at the National Geographic Society nor the many, many scientists pursuing these studies.

And mean nothing! Let's give an example:

As I said in a previous post, your understanding of the types and variety of dna related research makes your example incredibly obtuse as each blood cell carries individual dna and mixing blood from different people is not what is occurring in these studies. Simple enough that I get it, but your example indicates you don’t.

All these studies assume a pure genetic sample to start with so their results are bogus, based on a faulty assumption which anyone who has actually read the Book of Mormon would never make on accident.

Once again, the Lemba tribe has proven your statement wrong. They worked with the samples they had and followed the genetics to Israel. Similar group of people separated by the same length of time in conditions where there was more genetic mixing than indicated in the bom.

There is lots of Jewish DNA in Europe. So once researchers have thrown out the very alleles they are looking for, they can't find them

Another flawed strawman DUh. You are assuming the science is so flawed that they cannot identify these? You need to get past the whole groups DU and realize technology and science is at a point where they have accurately categorized halogroup subtypes and sub sub types.

I was not aware I was Quoting... By definition, DNA studies can only be based on what markers are found. Saying not found is just the flip side of found. As for not supporting the BOM, the BOM is clear (if you actually read it) that while the American Indians are descendants of Joseph, the majority of their DNA could come from "elsewhere". Mormon makes a point of saying he is "a pure descendant of Lehi.

Laman was the son of Lehi, the others that came later all came from the environs around Israel, therefore they would carry the same distinctive genes that would identify them from the region. Genetic mapping doesn’t trace individuals as you assume, but people groups from the same region

if Jeff Lindsay makes a good argument, you should (likewise) listen. He makes a good point and sources it.

Apparently you cannot follow the sources of info that Lindsey cited that I followed up on to see if what he was claiming in his argument had basis to be correct. Fact was he was picking selective citations that were generic enough to obfuscate the issue rather than head on.

Actually, Science like you promote would still have us sailing close to the beach so we don't fall off the edge of the earth.

My science has evidence from multiple disciplines showing the earth is round. Mormon science says the earth is flat and with enough time evidence will appear to prove them correct.

GZ: Real science takes the data, evaluates it and develops a conceptual model with which to test the data and compare other data to.
Um, that includes actually reading the book you are claiming to destroy by it's own tenets, did you? (Um... Nnnno)

Mind reading again, I’ve read the book in all its glorious boredom, repetition and ridiculousness. The bom model for new world settlement is not supported by the observations and data from multiple scientific disciplines.

You obviously are as "in the dark" about how Mormons do things as you are on the scientific process of DNA studies. God knows where exactly everything took place, if he wanted us to know, we'd know. Apparently he does not think it's important for our salvation.

Oh it is important to your salvation. . . . what is that funny little book you always want me to read and pray about. . . . . it is the entry level drug for mormonism. If false, then you’ve been following a false prophet (I know you are anyway from other sources besides bom DNA).

Um, why exactly would anyone care if not for the Book of Mormon? Keith Crandall et al can publish all they want and your side will dismiss them faster than Satan condemns righteousness. Why would anyone who didn't have to step into the cesspool anti Mormons always seem to make of discussions that could support Mormons.

So Asian migrationists are now the new anti-mormons LOL. He would have to defend his scientific reasoning with peers in the open world. If he is the sharp noodle you say he is, his paper should revolutionize the DNA studies of the world. His peers would judge the data and interpretation on the scientific merits. Crandall is smart enough to realize that his mormon testimony is in adequate to meet the task of making up for the loss of scientific merit in such a work.

and you know that how? (you don't) you want it to be so. The Book of Mormon (which you have not read) is clear about our lack of knowledge of the history the many of the people the Nephites met in the Americas.

2 Nephi 1:8 strongly indicates the lands were empty. The bom makes no mention of any of the pre-colombian tribes that were present in the region – especially those that dominated central America (just for you limited geography fans). These pre-Colombian peoples were present in the millions and already had a developed culture, as well as being quite war like. Mormon history just ran aground on the reality of pre-colombian America.

Is that what it means? Laman, Nephi's brother is also a descendent of Lehi, so being a "Pure descendant" of Lamanites would also make you a descendant of Lehi (Laman and Nephi's father). Then again if you actually read the book you might just know what you are talking about instead of making embarrassing statements like that.

The Lamanites were originally Nephites who broke off early and began their own race. As such, they too were descendents of Lehi, just like Ishmael’s descendents were also descendents of Abraham. Do you want to make more embarrassing statements DU? Use bright colors when you do.

Right there, is the flaw, the Book of Mormon does not say they are the only ones there, and it explicitly talks about meeting other people in the Americas. It really helps to have read the book, you know? Now back to your illogical slander:

How do you slander a piece of fiction? Nephi indicates the lands were not occupied. The Mulekites arrived from the area of Israel. Jarodites arrived much sooner, but true to form, began fighting each other and killed each other off. Nothing even remotely resembling the cultures of pre-colombian America. So now you stopped reading the Book of Mormon because of a Scientific evidence? My mistake, I thought you had "Bad" feelings and decided God didn't want to you to read it after calling a friend. Where on earth did I get that Idea...

God is not limited to heart burn when revealing His truth.

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:

Deliberate misrepresentation, but par for your course.

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.

: Terms such as "multitude," "numerous," "exceedingly great," "innumerable," and "as the sands of the sea" are present in abundance in the bom. 300,000 Lamanites were involved in just one battle IIRC. You would need a population base in the millions to support an army of that size. Alma 2:17-19 reports a total of 19,094 fatalities. On the basis of these figures John Sorenson, estimated the total Nephite-Lamanite population to be over 600,000 at that time (about 200,000 Nephites-Amlicites and over 400,000 Lamanites). Helman 3:8 covers the quote about the seas quite nicely, covering the face of the whole earth.

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.

Well, you tweaked my interest, please document these earthquakes that destroyed entire civilizations in the Americas, as this geological history should be most enlightening.

DNA geological studies require three things

As I said earlier, you ought to pass that info to the Nat’l Geo group doing some of the studies LOL

AFA your strawman supposition string goes Lehi, Nephi, Muelkites, Ishmael and Zoram were all from the immediate region around Israel – as such they would carry the semitic genetic marker DNA. The fact that Siberian / Asiatic DNA markers are the primary ones discovered in native populations are present even before bom times (yes, that’s right, in mummies dated well before 600 BC). You sequence falls apart when it hits science (see Nat’l Geo link earlier)

Speaking of Selective memory, did you forget that Keith Crandall is one of the Leading Scientists in the team that proved the link for the Lemba tribe? (that was why he was asked to review Simon Southerton's work...) You can't even discuss a precedent without quoting Keith Crandall's work, how can you then say he's wrong on this? I suppose he's a "fallen Scientist" now that he joined the Church... LOL!

Too bad he couldn’t properly apply what he learned to the Lamanites.

The official JOSEPH SMITH—HISTORY is the only version Joseph felt was right, he said so. All the others, by him and people who heard him speak, he was never really happy with.

ROTFLAICGU, so he didn’t like his written version about angels, he wasn ‘t happy about his age when it happened, so he fiddled around with those facts until he got something he was happy about. You haven't even bothered to go back and read those other accounts, have you.

Dictated by Joseph, maybe that was why he liked it better. Maybe he was a better speaker than a writer, that would not be surprising in someone who had a formal education of third grade.

Right, guess that is why he couldn’t discern the difference between an angel, angels or Jesus or God between the accounts. Guess it helped his memory to say how old he was rather than write it down. That’s a lot of maybe’s DU.

Since You are the one trying to critique a book you have never read through I can understand your analogy, and I sympathize.

Say a lie often enough and someone might believe it, however DU I told you I read it – are you now calling me a liar – with your history LOL

Well, If you ant to believe that, Go ahead. I lost friends, so I don't joke about it. Do me one favor, Never forget.

I don’t forget, but that never the less matches the argument you are making here.

Godzilla, Keith Crandall is the only Source of credible opinion that has been put forth on this thread, and he is on our side having left yours after observing the evidence.

: Factually challenged again DUh. I have cited from multiple reports to show other credible opinions – so if you want to appeal to authority who’s never published his close held views of mormonism and dna in a professional journal – go right ahead. I could cite Southerton’s rebuttal to Crandall if I desired as well as post links to youtube sites countering everything Crandall may say by people equally as credible. That doesn’t change the facts – go post to the Nat’l Geo folks and see what their reply is.

Give up a losing battle or resign yourself to being that last flat earther, the believer who in opposition to all evidence just has to believe that Mormons and Mormonism is bad. We are not, and all the belief anti Mormons can muster will not change that.

LOL, all the evidence DU ROFLAICGU, I have noted at least 5 different dna study methodologies that all show native Americans originated from asia. DNA from mummies predating Nephi also shows the same thing. You hold out for the hopeful dinosaur. No, the flat earthers are mormons, all the credible evidence points to the fact that the native Americans did not originate from Hebraic/sematic peoples from the region of Israel. You are just waiting for that one evidence. Just like you are waiting for that one archaelogical find. Occam’s razor applied to the situation does not fall in mormons favor.

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.