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.

DU: In case you just don't understand, Geneticists disagree with you.

CH: No, you just proved that you don't understand genetics. That study showed that Jewish priests, regardless of denomination (Orthodox, Sephardic, Reform etc.) tend to share the same y-chromosome. In case you don't understand, that supports my point. Other studies, such as Hammer's, showed that all Jews, regardless of where they are from (except for Ethiopians) share genetic markers and have similar y-chromosome distribution frequencies. In short, an Iraqi Jew has more in common genetically with a Polish Jew than either has with Polish or Iraqi gentiles.

So, Quoting from, linking to and showing the work of an actual population geneticist shows I don't understand the science in following a population with Genetics?

You really need to read the stuff I posted before responding to it, you are trying to compare two genetically conservative groups with a genetically promiscuous group, and it just does not work.

DU: A rather strong claim to make just on your reputation and no supporting evidence.

CH: Sure, how about every single study real scientists (not LDS lackeys) have done?

Every single study by non Mormons... Link one by a population geneticist.

Oh, and BTW, When Keith Crandall did his study he was not a Mormon, he joined later, so there goes the every single one argument. (Just a hint, never speak in absolutes...)

CH: They show East Asian, partially Siberian origins for Native Americans.

Interesting, you said Asian only before I brought up the Siberian genes, so now that was your argument? LOL!

CH: There is no haplogroup or junk DNA similarity with Middle Eastern groups.

Then your people have not tested descendants of Mayans as Keith did. Sloppy research by non primary researchers who are not specialists in the field makes you guys look bad.

DU: That's really funny, since one of my ancestors was left behind by the group as they traveled north (her diary was preserved because she married royalty, my mom bought a copy translated from the original Hebrew), but hey you say they don't exist, and with your track record on this post so far, who could doubt you?

CH: I'd like to see that "diary." If it existed, it would be 2700 years old. Not likely.

So how were the manuscripts of the bible preserved? By copying them over and over, same here, but it was still legible, I'll ask my mom for the tittle of the book, you can order a copy on amazon, I believe. It has her genealogy back to Abraham, songs in Hebrew, and the story of how she got left behind, fascinating stuff.

DU: Do you have a link for this tidbit of information? I'm not doubting you, just wondered if you had any backup what so ever, if not maybe I could help you find some.

CH: We have Assyrian cuneiform records. 27,290 people were exiled. That's it. Google it. You could probably find a picture or two of the actual cuneiform.

Google it? That's your link? ROTFLOL! Your assertion, you prove it. I have better things to do with my time than do your research for you. (I'm busy researching links for my responses)

You say the ten tribes are already here, assimilated, the Bible disagrees with you:
Jeremiah 16:14-15

14 ¶ Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that it shall no more be said, The Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt;
15 But, The Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands whither he had driven them: and I will bring them again into their land that I gave unto their fathers.

Or: Jeremiah 31:7-10

7 For thus saith the Lord; Sing with gladness for Jacob, and shout among the chief of the nations: publish ye, praise ye, and say, O Lord, save thy people, the remnant of Israel.
8 Behold, I will bring them from the north country, and gather them from the bcoasts of the earth, and with them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and her that travaileth with child together: a great company shall return thither.
9 They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.
10 ¶ Hear the word of the Lord, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles far off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock.

And that's just a couple from Jeremiah...

CH: You have some "source" saying 6 million (based on some backhanded calculations, based on the Bible). Mazel tov. Those sources are wrong. Assyrian cuneiform says 27,290 people went into the Assyrian exile (the subsequent Babylonian Captivity was much larger). The Assyrians kept excellent records. Those records are supported by the Bible itself -- it notes that part of Israel found sanctuary in Judah and celebrated Passover under Hezekiah, and more found santuary during the reign of Josiah. That wouldn't have been possible if every man, woman and child was deported. But it fits in perfectly with what Assyrian records tell us: the upper classes and royalty were exiled, the common people were left on the land.

No link to this document you want to quote? LOL!

Are you claiming that there are no othere documents detailing Israelites being exiled by the Assyrians? Prove it! ROTFLOL!

DU: The Samaritans were the descendants of the tribes of Israel who intermarried with those who were not Abraham's descendant's which is why the Jews looked on them as half breeds and not "real" Jews. Out of curiosity, where do you get this stuff?

CH: No, that's just what the Bible says.

So is the Bible an authoritative source for you or not? If not, why not. If not, what is?

CH: That part of the Bible is a political polemic, reflecting the hatred between Jews and Samaritans (it also says that the Samaritans are idol worshippers, which is false). The Samaritans themselves say that they descend from the common people who weren't exiled by the Assyrians. Genetics has showed that the Samaritans are right -- they are indistinguishable from Jews, at least on the male side. Google it. And yes, there are only 600 Samaritans left. Most live in Holon, a few are still in Nablus.

Of course the Jewish male line is preserved, that's what the Bible said, the men of the covenant married the women of the land. As for the 600 left, source?

DU: I would really love to see some sources on this, My brother in law who runs tours over in the middle east for the church should get some of this information, he says they all claim to descend from Ishmael, but then, he's probably an idiot too, huh?

CH: You are saying that the Bukharan, northern Persian, and Kurdish JEWS think they descend from Ishmael?? You are wrong, very wrong. And I don't care what your brother in law says. I have known many Jews from Bukhara, northern Iran and Kurdistan. Most have longstanding traditions of being from the so-called lost tribes. Hell, just ask them. The Bukharan Jews in particular are quite proud of it.

We were talking about the Palestinians and that is who I am referencing here with Ishmael. Not "Jews" as for the guys claiming to be Jews being from the lost tribes... If they were from another tribe, they wouldn't be Jews...

My genealogy says I belong to the tribe of Ephraim. That does not make me a Jew.

Getting back to the topic, (why did we go there?) in order to prove a relationship, the American Indians would have had to be a genetically conservative group, they were not, so this will never prove a negative this way.

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.