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.

I have better things to do than argue with you.

Then why did you come here and post calling others idiots because of what they believe, did you expect no opposition to your pronouncement of intellectual judgment? (Silly rabbit religion threads are for arguing!)

I gave you information, all of which can be found quite easily on the web.

To me this sounds like:

"I'm sure you can find evidence to support what I said (even though I can't be bothered to) don't you care about supporting my argument more than I do?"

If you have any interest in looking for it, you know have enough information to google it and find it.

Let me make this clear, I have no interest in trying to support your argument which I disagree with, instead, I spend time on things I do believe in. Feel free to try to help me with my research since that seems to be what you think people should do.

If you prefer to keep believing in fairy tales, without ever searching for the truth, that’s your choice also.

Let's see, I post video of several geneticists discussing the issue, and even post my personal logical reasoning on the topic, complete with links and I'm the one believing in fairy tails? Hey whatever gets you through the day FRiend.

For those who don't know what was linked earlier, I'll include the text of my page that was linked here:

Does DNA from Indians prove anything about the Book of Mormon?
Lets look at some claims from DNA "Experts" then we'll talk about why they got what they Got when they did their research: From Take a Stand ministries
The research shows that 96.5% of them show an Asian origin
From When DNA Evidence is Ignored: Systematic Bias Against Non-Asian Origins of Ancient Americans When DNA evidence is ignored
It is wrong to say that there has been no DNA evidence pointing to non-Asian (e.g., European or Middle East) origins of ancient Native Americans. But some of the possible evidence has routinely been discarded and ignored.
There are also lots of people claiming a the Halpotypes from central Siberia prove the Indians came from there, why so many "Sources" for Indian DNA?

The answer is simple, in a genetically promiscuous group (People who will reproduce with people outside their group) you can find anything you are looking for if you look long enough. A genetically conservative group (People that reproduces exclusively with people of their group) the Jews are a really great example of this, they inter marry so rarely with outsiders that they actually have some genetic diseases that are unique to "their group" (Tay-Sachs disease). When speaking of A genetically Promiscuous group, Americans come to mind, we tend to be open minded genetically speaking, we marry anybody, and everybody into our "melting pot", and historically this is what the American Indians did too.

How does this genetic promiscuity affect DNA studies?

DNA geological studies require three things

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.
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".

Supposition # 1, A Pure genetic sample starting from a common ancestor group:

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 #2 A genetically conservative group When living apart:

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.

Supposition #3 A genetically conservative group also from the same ancestor group for 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.
So, out of three things that are needed to get a match we have one. What should we find when doing this comparison?

We should get different answers with differing samples, and Gee, that's what we get.

Result? You cannot prove the Book of Mormon True or False with DNA. why? The American Indians were not a genetically conservative group, they would marry in vi kings and Spanish and Europeans, if they had been genetically conservative, and we could see that their DNA came from say Africa, that would be a blow to the Book of Mormon's credibility, but this is exactly what you would expect from a group that started as a genetically impure sample and diluted itself as it went.

On the other hand, if you could find a group of Indians who had halpotypes that did descend from the Middle east, that would be a significant support for the Book of Mormon.

Keith Crandall, a population geneticist who specializes in these kinds of research was asked to confirm the work done by many who were "outside their specialty", after doing the research, he joined the LDS church, and now teaches Genetics at BYU.

These videos are from fairLDS.org, and is a fair representation of what Mormons think about DNA and the Book of Mormon.
part 1 The Book of Mormon and New World DNA
part 2 The Book of Mormon and New World DNA
Part 3 The Book of Mormon and New World DNA

To sum up, DNA does not and cannot disprove the Book of Mormon, because the necessary circumstances are not there to support a negative conclusion, however, there is evidence to support the Book of Mormon if you want to look for it.

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.