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.

GZ: Its discoverer was also a discredited archeologist who falsified field notes and documentation to try to prove his theories were correct.
Really, where is that documented? Oh yeah, Mormons are the only ones who have to give links, sorry, I almost forgot.

Unlike you, I do not post anything that I cannot back up. The scandal surrounding Hibben – the official ‘discover’ of the LLS, was revealed in "The Mystery of Sandia Cave". New Yorker Magazine (New York) 71 (16): 66–83. I know you will whine about it Du but tough. You can go to your local library and review it. Bottom line is that because of shoddy work and questionable handling of other’s work in the cave, the clovis point he claimed was 25K years old was only in the neighborhood of 10-12K years. The New Yorker story is summarized here.. Within the same article, was another instance of questionable work In 1946, Hibben described an expedition to Chinitna Bay on the west side of Cook Inlet in Alaska, where he claimed that he found lithic points that match those of the Folsom people living in New Mexico 10,000 years ago.
Archaeologist James Dixon of the University of Colorado in Boulder and others went to the isolated location and found Hibben's claim to be false in 1978. "It is clear that the site never existed" - Dixon. It goes without saying, Hibben’s clovis claims are no longer accepted and his reputation thoroughly clouded.

I also found a most amazing statement by the grand poobah of mormon apologetics - Hugh Nibley, who stated for the record - Much study and care went into the preparation of this "ancient Hebrew inscription" near Los Lunas, New Mexico, yet a cursory glance was enough to reveal the crisp freshness of the newly-cut letters. Numerous other flaws appeared upon closer inspection. To anyone not determined to accept this inscription as genuine, it furnishes an interesting illustration of the pains to which people will go to produce a convincing-looking antique, and the impossibility of doing so without immense and laborious preparation. (New Approaches To Book of Mormon Study, by Hugh Nibley, Improvement Era, January, 1954.)

Ol Nib himself calls the rock a fraud. When is an artifact not an artifact - when it is a fraud. Yet you still want to lend credence to this.

I like the one I gave because it talks about how they did a rubbing of the stone and stored it at the Smithsonian, and later, they found it was really closely matched to the Tel Dan stone found in 1993 in Israel. I especially like the fact that no-one knew how to read the writing (much less write it) when the rubbing was taken, but later it turns out to be the ten commandments, written in proto-Hebrew. Cool stuff, thanks for reminding me, oh yeah, in your private universe where this is a forgery, how exactly did Mormons carve the stone with a language no-one had yet learned to read or write, and when did they do it since the stone was known about since the mid 1800's (This should be good)

The Tel Dan interpretation is highly disputed and can hardly be considered final since the Tel Dan inscription was on a prepared piece of stone – while this is not. Good ‘ol proto Hebrew again huh Du? From another page on your link the author states: The important point to learn here is that the letters used in Los Lunas are not homogeneous! The scripts on this stone tell of many scripts from many ports of call. Lets take it from the easiest to the more difficult. The letter Tet (T) is Greek Script. Iberic script; both northern and southern, display an X. Phoenician script displays the circle X; as does Aramaic and specifically the Estrangela script is no match even close to Los Lunas. Did the Nephites have use of Greek when they left Jerusalem – NO. The fact that there are mixed characters not only denies a Nephi/Lamanite connection, but a Hebrew one as well. Well, so much for ‘proto Hebrew’

GZ: Rejected by archaeologists (Tennessee Anthropologist Vol. XVI, No. 1, Spring 1991) as a fraud.
You bet it was, even thought he dig was financed by the Smithsonian and they found it in controlled environment, they rejected it initially because they thought there was no way their could be a stone in America that age with the ten commandments carved in it in Hebrew. Then again, that's your logic now (It can't be true, therefore all evidence is a forgery which sounds like: The earth is flat so all evidence that it is round is a lie, kill the scientists!)

No, more like head in the sand TBMs. From the article you dismissed out of hand, Mainfort and Kwas consulted Paleo-Hebrew expert Frank Moore Cross of Harvard University, who contradicted Gordon's assertion that the inscription was Paleo-Hebrew. Cross stated that only two letters of the entire inscription could conceivably be considered Paleo-Hebrew of the period in question (1st century B.C. or 1st century A.D.). Cross also said Gordon's reading of the inscription ("for the Jews") was based on the Aramaic alphabet rather than Paleo-Hebrew. Also the zinc composition of the brass bracelets found in the same stratum as the stone, was similar to that used in the 1st-century Mediterranean region, but showed that this particular zinc composition was used in the manufacture of brass bracelets in England in the 17th and 18th centuries. Now put on your thinking cap Du, I know, its kinda dusty for lack of use. Metallurgical tests of bracelets found with the stone, along with further expert examination of the lettering all indicate that the stone is only 17-18th century –not bom period. That is unless Nephi was time warped forward to get the metallurgical mix to produce 17th century bracelets in 600 BC. Oh and another tiny tid bit you continue to overlook with your out of date artifact analysis - In 2004, Mainfort and Kwas published an article in American Antiquity showing an inscription in an 1870 Masonic reference book that bore striking similarities to the Bat Creek inscription. The Masonic inscription was an artist's impression of how "Holy to Yahweh" might have appeared in Paleo-Hebrew. Wow, a copy was available for an individual to use prior to the discovery of the stone – imagine that.

Yep, that's two for two, two pieces of evidence that will make a thinking man think, and you dismiss them out of hand.

The lurkers here will see that the only one who dismisses anything out of hand is you DU. You have been confronted with the fact that FARMS/Maxwell Inst. do not consider the artifact to be authentic enough to support. Numerous other linguists examining the writings indicate that the writing is not in as ancient of lettering as you claim – still have your thinking cap on? – and in fact contain modern features. In short as ‘ol Nibley himself sums up – it is a fraud.

Lessee, oh yeh, you had some linked to a website that also had ufo and bigfoot reports too.
Yep, I gave the good with the bad, I have nothing to hide, so?

If you are willing to believe that as well as post it as evidence for your faith, your evidences are pretty shallow and contaminated. Why would any one want to believe your other “proofs”.

First, they are hardly "dashed upon the ground" just because you refuse to admit the evidence into the court of your mind.

As stated above, the so called artifacts have not been dismissed a priori. In both cases they are not even cited by the quasi-official FARMS/Maxwell folks as such. That should have been your first clue DU. Secondly, I have presented further data and analysis that provide more objective evaluation of the items. In the court of my mind, the evidence you throw out just doesn’t hold water to these more numerous other sources of data and interpretation and are more credible.

As a matter of fact, yes, there is plenty more evidence, most is in the Book of Mormon itself.

Pinkie and the Brain come to mind. Yes, evidence of the bom being a fraud is also found within its pages, starting with 1 Nephi 1:1.

How about some of these: Hebraisms and The Book of Mormon How did Joseph know and better yet incorporate without Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon if he was a bumpkin?

No, but he did have a KJV of the Bible which he read frequently. If one of my main reading sources is the KJV of the Bible and then I turn around and write a book that sounds like and quotes from the KJV of the Bible what does Occam's Razor tell us? Furthermore, the bom is claimed to not to have been written in Hebrew to begin with, but reformed Egyptian. Perhaps they should more properly be referred to as Reformed Egyptianisms and the bom.

Nahom in The Book of Mormon How in the Heck Did Joseph know about this place in Arabia if he was a back wood bumpkin?

Mormon apologetics relies heavily on subjective validation and reverse engineering to make their data come true. This is a prime example of this - a rock is found with the letters NHM inscribed on it and they use it as a proof of the bom Nahom. This could also be Naham, Noham, or any other combination of vowels. They subjectively validate their hypothesis with this type of information. However, you are unable to find the river that flowed into the Red Sea that Lehi’s party stayed at for at least one year. Hebrew doesn't have vowels, so the Hebrew name NHM (nun-chet-men) could be transliterated to Nahom. But since we don't know what vowels were supposed to be used, any other vowel permutation is equally likely: Nahum, Niham, Noham, Nuhim, Nuham and so on (25 different combinations are possible in fact, 30 if the second vowel is left out completely). So to appeal to the inscripton "NHM" as proving the location "Nahom" is really unfounded. In any case, this is not the first time LDS explorers have tried to match a location with the place Nahom. If it is so easy to locate, why the continued list of contenders? After all, in Biblical geography, we know there is one Jericho (located), one Babylon (located), one Nazareth (located), and so on. Lehi and his family had been commanded by God not to light fires. Why would this commandment be given? There would have to be a good reason, as they could not cook their meat, and would thereby violate the Torah. Was it supposed to be a secretive trek? If so, why would they go to the populated location of NHM? This doesn't make sense (Occams razor time again). Now, here's the problem: if the "NHM" carving truly was "BOM evidence"---and if the BOM storyline is true---then scholars should be able to find A MILLION TIMES MORE ITEMS OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE BOM CULTURE SOMEWHERE IN THE AMERICAS THAN THE SINGLE STONE CARVING IN YEMEN. Hello (knock, knock), anyone home DU?

Nephi's Bountiful in Arabia: The Book of Mormon The Book of Mormon in defiance of the knowledge of the day of Arabia describes a lush area, he called bountiful. Due east of Nahom, it exists and can be seen on satellite photos today. Only some one who was uneducated would have made this mistake and been correct.

Exodus 15:22-27 indicates the existence of oases in the desert. Smith would have known this. Bountiful is the oasis mentioned in 1 Nephi 17:5. The fact that Smith mentions an oasis in the Book of Mormon therefore proves nothing. Fact is the tribes in that region were highly protective and possessive of their water sources (Lawrence of Arabia), there is no way Nephi would have been allowed to sit there unchallenged for the year or more required for him to get his iron and make his boats. That also goes without saying whether the site would provide adequate iron ore or that the trees would be satisfactory to construct an ocean worthy boat.

Horses and the Book of Mormon
Joseph talked about horses in the Book of Mormon, in his day this was preposterous, now we have found bones that date to the right age, what an idiot, but he was right.

So where is your source other than a youtube source? Certainly a more recent scientific article would provide a better source than this talk. Sorenson considers the most solid evidence that the Maya had horses is in a brief note published on page 278 of the Journal of Mammalogy, vol. 38 (1957). Written by Clayton E. Ray of the Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology, the note tells of "horse remains of probable preColumbian age from a new locality in Yucatan. This material consists of one complete upper molar and three fragmentary lower molars ... obtained by archaeologists ... during excavation at the Mayan ruins of Mayapan ... The teeth were collected in the cenote Ch'en Mul ... from the bottom stratum in a sequence of unconsolidated earth almost two meters in thickness ... The horse teeth are not specifically identifiable. They are considered to be preColumbian on the basis of depth of burial and degree of mineralization ...
"It is by no means implied that preColumbian horses were known to the Mayans, but it seems likely that horses were present on the Yucatan Peninsula in preMayan times. The tooth fragments reported here could have been transported in fossil condition as curios by the Mayans . . ."

So on the basis of some teeth, we have unimpeachable evidence of horses in bom times? Were the use of horses as stated in the bom true, then many more examples of horses would have been found – the chariots and associated stables, equipment, pictographs, etc. If this were such an open and shut case, why have mormon apologists tried to link horses to deer? Post Colombian horses that escaped thrived in America and still do today. So if they thrived then, why didn’t they thrive throughout the bom period – what great catastrophe caused their loss and wouldn’t it have affected similar animals? Occams razor time DU. A horse is a horse of course of course, except in the bom when it is a deer. I live in the real world, lets compare the anti's leading proponent of DNA disproving the Book of Mormon:
Simon G. Southerton, is a plant biologist,

Here DU drifts off into the classical mormon polemtic attack on the person’s character rather than the facts. Hypocritically, DU draws support for the Bat Creek stone from an archaeologist – no an economics professor. How accurate is this attack? Contrary to his attack, Southerton is a PhD and a molecular biologist with primary specialty in plant genetics. He began is his human DNA related research in an effort to prove the bom to be true (fancy that DUh), he communicated with BYU and FARMS to get more accurate data to support the BOM. And of course DU cannot be bothered to even get the title of the book correct its Losing a Lost Tribe Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church, but then why present facts when a good smear will do. He found as many other mormons, the science and facts of history do not support the bom and accordingly, Smith was a fraud. He is also well published in journals and other professional papers in addition to his book.

Let's compare that to his essentially opposite:
Keith Crandall,

Yes, Mr. Crandall is a well established genetic scientist in his own right. But here is an interesting portion of his bio you provided –

Surprisingly, he finds a match and while not claiming absolute confirmation (that would be amazing) he claims supporting DNA was found.

That is a contradiction in terms if there ever was one. And for someone who claims others violate good science, he performs bad science. Yes DU, he touts the 2005 paper by Noah Rosenberg at least 3 times saying recent DNA studies show Middle Eastern haplotype at greatest frequencies in the Mayan (and you say I never follow your links). He makes this statement on the basis of a single North American population, the Pima, and three South American populations, an alarming conclusion for a population geneticist to make given the small number of populations studied. As I posted before is this a reasonable conclusion?

The recent publication of a much more comprehensive study of American Indian populations by Sijia Wang in 2007 has revealed just how wide of the mark Crandall’s conclusion was. Wang’s study included Siberians among the populations they examined. DNA that was identified by Rosenberg to be potentially related to Hebrew was found too be more closely related to chromosomes found among Siberian populations than Hebrews. So Crandall’s match actually turns out to be false because he was looking at the data through the rose colored glasses of mormonism, and not as a scientist would. How is that so? From the DVD “ The Book of Mormon and New World DNA” he says “ But it’s pretty patently obvious when you look at their data in this one figure in particular. You know. If that’s what you’re looking for, it’s there.

Your BYU professor ‘superstar’ is tarnished by misrepresenting Rosenberg in order to make his religious point. That he became a mormon just goes to confirm that there is a fool born every minute.

Either Keith Crandall is the biggest fool in the church, or there is no disproving DNA evidence.

I think I made it evident above and mis-representing DNA data is not disproving DNA data.

IMHO the only reason you would do this is because your position on DNA is backed by a losing hand and you know it, so you try to change the subject precisely because the DNA evidence favors us and not you.

Oh, so you have mormon’s able to explain the gastrobacterlogical DNA studies that show an asian origin for the native Americans? Or perhaps there is recent mormon data that shows that the DNA of dogs came from the middle east. And if the DNA evidenced is so strong for the bom, why hasn’t a scientist of Crandall’s stature published such in any respectable journal? Lots of crawdad studies – zero, nada, zilch professional articles supporting the claim by mormons that the native Americans are descendants from a group of Hebrews who arrived here in 600 BC. When I see that start to happen, then you will have the right to sit on your high horse (or is it a tapir?) and make your pronouncement.

If you actually went to the links I gave for Keith Crandall,

Like I said, you waived that dullard beneath my nose a long time ago.

. . . . . you would see a list of peer reviewed papers as long as your arm, maybe longer (it depends on the length of your arms...) You didn't look, so you didn't see, which is exactly my point about anti's they don't see only because they won't look.

As I said, lots of crawdad articles, but none, nada, zero, zilch has been published in those same (or similar) journals making the claim that DNA evidence/data supports mormon theory that the Americas were populated by a small group of Hebrews – even in the most remote manner. When he publishes in one of these journals, they you can crow. You seem to have missed the fact that he wrote his papers before he joined the church... They cannot be coerced on point of execution... Oops.

No, but since he was a mormon at the time of the video, he had to toe the line now didn’t he. Now he has too much invested to cross the line. Sad for him. bless.

There is no absence of evidence DU, there is an abundance of evidence following those multiple (as well as other) lines of investigation.

Stop right there, what is DNA analysis?

DNA Analysis is the process of looking for markers that are known to be in a specific group you are looking for, in this case, a group of markers commonly found only in descendent's from a specific geographical area to indicate common ancestors. Period, that is what Population Genetics is all about.

You claim the markers are not found. (The Absence of evidence)

So again... I quote "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." and you guys claim it is.

I could go into more funny things I don't know about you and or any other Anti, but I think my point was made the first time.

From When DNA Evidence is Ignored: Systematic Bias Against Non-Asian Origins of Ancient Americans. If you throw out any Jewish alleles claiming they are European corrupted samples then you will inevitably end up with "Gee, we can't find any of the evidence we threw out. It must not exist."

The rest of your long dissertation rests on this point, and without the Lack of evidence "Evidence" to support it, it falls of it's own weight. Occam's razor just cut you Godzilla, were you too numb to notice?

DU, you are the one who posted the whole DNA nonsense on this formerly caucus thread and the thread was started by a mormon, so at least get your short history correct.

The story line of the Book of Mormon includes other genetic races besides Lehi's and since we don't know the origins of those people it is impossible to prove the Book of Mormon wrong with DNA because you don't start with nor do you preserve Jewish DNA in a genetically conservative group. Mormon, towards the end of the Book of Mormons makes a point of saying he is a pure descendant of Lehi, as if this was a rare thing. If Lehi's descendants were the only ones in the America's wouldn't everyone be able to say this? The Book of Mormon just does not tell the story of a group that is carefully guarding their genetic heritage and you'd know that if you had just finished reading it instead of getting superstitious about it.

The funny thing is anyone who wants to actually, look at my page here, would know that because that is one of the points I make there. (See suppositions one and two...)

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence is a flat-earth argument when it is not supported by other avenues of evaluating the truth.

You know what Argumentum ad Ignorantiam is, right?

Here, let's look at the exposition on this fallacy:

An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence.

Arguing that alack of genetic evidence even in a direct genetic descendant is Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, What I am saying that no only is this a flawed line of reasoning, direct genetic preservation is precluded by the Book of Mormon itself. Thus genetic disproof of the Book of Mormon is impossible.

As always it is a pleasure to observe your ivory towers of mormon proofs crumble into dust.

All your DNA "evidence" not with standing, the Book of Mormon, and Mormons for that matter claimed that the American Indians were pure genetic descendants of Lehi, we don't and never did, the Book of Mormon itself bears witness of that. Ignoring evidence that proves you wrong is a fallacy in and of itself.

The problem you have in making a good argument is that unless you can see your opponent's point you cannot accurately refute it. Anti's generally don't want to understand, just refute, thus they make tactically poor arguments such as yours here.

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. -- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

The question anti's should be asking first is: "Does the Book of Mormon say the People in the Americas' preserved their genetics to the point where it could be proven wrong with DNA. The answer is no.

You waste your time with this, so please keep going! (LOL!)

DU: God already testified to me of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, and of Jesus Christ my Lord and savior.

LC: Too bad, for GOD already had an answer to the BoM: the BIBLE.

Yes, he does talk about the Book of Mormon in the Bible:

15 ¶ The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying,
16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:
17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.

I have a really neat set of Scriptures, it's called a Quad, we have the Bible (stick of Judah) and the Book of Mormon (stick of Joseph) and the Pearl of Great Price and the D&C (His companions) all in one book. This is literal fulfillment of this scripture!

LC: IT testifies to MOST of us the UNTRUTHFULLNESS of MORMONism.
Galations 1:6-9
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

It is really sad how the first council of Nicea changed the very meaning of God, altering the meaning of salvation, and losing so much of the gospel of Paul, thus teaching another gospel. Man are those guys accursed! Good thing God is restoring his gospel as he promised he would after the falling away prophesied in 2 Thes. 2: 3.

1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

Yep, Rome was already interfering in the church, and Christ knew it would eventually cause a falling away from the faith, but there would be a restoration: Daniel 2: 44-45

44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.
45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.

I find it interesting to note how many times some of the Prophecies of the Bible will be fulfilled, Jesus has established his kingdom many times on the earth, yet since it exists in the afterlife, it has never been destroyed, only destroyed off the face of the earth. I am also amazed that again, the stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner.
Luke 9-18

9 Then began he to speak to the people this parable; A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it forth to husbandmen, and went into a far country for a long time.
10 And at the season he sent a servant to the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard: but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty.
11 And again he sent another servant: and they beat him also, and entreated him shamefully, and sent him away empty.
12 And again he sent a third: and they wounded him also, and cast him out.
13 Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him.
14 But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.
15 So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them?
16 He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.
17 And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?
18 Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

The vineyard has again been taken over by the husbandmen, they give not the Lord of this vineyard do with those who corrupt his vineyard? You Cannot win in fighting against the church of God, your loss was certain before you began.

I used this scripture on purpose, for I ask those of you who read this parable with familiarity, where then was it written that the "The Stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner"? Jesus knew the Scripture, the chief priests and scribes they knew, even the people all knew. Yet in the Bible we have today this parable by Jesus is the first time we hear of it.

The Bible (which was compiled by the Catholic Church) left out many scriptures that were quoted over and over by the apostles and Jesus himself because these books taught things that defied the Trinity. The book of Enoch for example was used by the early church, Quoted by Jesus and all the writers of all the gospels. The phrase "Son of Man" is a reference to a specific prophecy from the book of Enoch, yet it was left out of the Bible because the Doctrine of the Catholic church no longer agreed with it.

Repent of your attacks on the restored church of Jesus Christ, for I testify to you that Jesus lives, the Book of Mormon is God's word, and God will not hold blameless in the last day he who tries to pervert the kingdom of God.

Good night.

There is no absence of evidence DU, there is an abundance of evidence following those multiple (as well as other) lines of investigation.
Stop right there,

Not so fast weedhopper, there is an abundance of evidence – your problem is that the evidence does not support your position.

what is DNA analysis? DNA Analysis is the process of looking for markers that are known to be in a specific group you are looking for, in this case, a group of markers commonly found only in descendent's from a specific geographical area to indicate common ancestors. Period, that is what Population Genetics is all about.

Your oversimplification is noted. But there are other components of DNA that are evaluated or analyzed. Haplogroups most commonly studied are Y-chromosome (Y-DNA) haplogroups and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) , notice right off the bat there are two streams of data that must be evaluated and where that data leads. But DNA related studies are not limited to human DNA. DNA studies of intestinal bacteria globally have been conducted; DNA studies of dogs have too. The findings of those studies all have effectively shown that humans, the stomach bacteria they carried and dogs originated from Asia, not the middle east. This is also supported by archaeological findings that indicate a north to south migration across the Americas (this is counter to what the bom would predict).

You claim the markers are not found. (The Absence of evidence) So again... I quote "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." and you guys claim it is.

And I repeat you are misquoting me. Markers are found in great abundance, they only do do not support the bom mythology.

From When DNA Evidence is Ignored: Systematic Bias Against Non-Asian Origins of Ancient Americans. If you throw out any Jewish alleles claiming they are European corrupted samples then you will inevitably end up with "Gee, we can't find any of the evidence we threw out. It must not exist."

Wow, the great DNA scientist Lindsey.

Bonatto and Salzano (1997) The X haplotype issue has been looked at in greater detail over the past 10 years, and the issues raised were resolved. Too bad for Jeff and you, the data no longer supported the mormon position.

Salzano (2002) Did Jeff ignore post colombian contamination? Salzano openly admits his data is not complete enough to clarify the heterogenity and contamination. Hardly bias there.

Malhi et al. (2002) Jeff quotes the article, but it doesn’t say which groups that were outside the standards were detected. So he is making an assumption of bias against Malhi who supports his exclusion based on other detailed studies.

Kolman and Tuross (2000) again the haplotype is unstated. What they do say is compelling it has not been found - in New World indigenous populations. Then they are not talking about Haplogroup X which is the touchstone of mormon hope, because it as a whole group has been detected. Unfortunately again for mormons, the subgroup detected in indians is not the subgroup found in hebrews.

The rest of your long dissertation rests on this point, and without the Lack of evidence "Evidence" to support it, it falls of it's own weight. Occam's razor just cut you Godzilla, were you too numb to notice?

Science like you and Lindsey promote put the cart before the horse (or tapir/deer). You seek to find data to support your theory and ignore the vast amounts of data that show otherwise. Real science takes the data, evaluates it and develops a conceptual model with which to test the data and compare other data to. Mormon model is to identify the spiritual goal, then quote mine the studies to support the model. If the data is so conclusive in favor of mormon, why are there four different theories for the location of the bom lands? If it is so conclusive, why are there no publications in professional journals and societies supporting the argument of Hebrew dna in the early Americas.

The story line of the Book of Mormon includes other genetic races besides Lehi's and since we don't know the origins of those people it is impossible to prove the Book of Mormon wrong with DNA because you don't start with nor do you preserve Jewish DNA in a genetically conservative group.

They were all from the same geographic region – Israel and its immediate environs. That is your specific geographic region being studied.

Mormon, towards the end of the Book of Mormons makes a point of saying he is a pure descendant of Lehi, as if this was a rare thing.

Means simply he has no blood of the Lamanites, nothing surprising there.

The Book of Mormon just does not tell the story of a group that is carefully guarding their genetic heritage and you'd know that if you had just finished reading it instead of getting superstitious about it.

Simple truth again DU – a group of individuals from the environs of Israel populate the new world, but some how their dna is changed to resemble Asiatic peoples. I am not superstitious about it, I simply evaluate the mountain of evidence to the contrary and am not constrained question the foundations of science on the basis of theological assumptions.

You know what Argumentum ad Ignorantiam is, right?

Every time I read one of your posts.

So lets take a closer look at this fallacy’s definition as it applies here.
An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. So in the mormonism argument for there being evidence of DNA (proposition), just that it hasn’t been found yet. What DU glosses over is the second part of the fallacy’s application If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence. The website link give this example:

Similarly, when extensive investigation has been undertaken, it is often reasonable to infer that something is false based upon a lack of positive evidence for it. For instance, if a drug has been subjected to lengthy testing for harmful effects and none has been discovered, it is then reasonable to conclude that it is safe. Another example is:
If there really were a large and unusual type of animal in Loch Ness, then we would have undeniable evidence of it by now.
We don't have undeniable evidence of a large, unfamiliar animal in Loch Ness.
Therefore, there is no such animal.
As with reasoning using the closed world assumption, auto-epistemic reasoning does not commit the fallacy of Argument from Ignorance.

Mormon application:
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.
We do not have undeniable evidence of an advanced Hebrew society in the Americas
Therefore, these peoples did not / do not exist.

Is that simple enough for you DU? All your DNA "evidence" not with standing, the Book of Mormon, and Mormons for that matter claimed that the American Indians were pure genetic descendants of Lehi, we don't and never did, the Book of Mormon itself bears witness of that. Ignoring evidence that proves you wrong is a fallacy in and of itself.

Dishonesty in the matter is unbecoming of you. Laman (Lehi's oldest son) were called Lamanites.

The problem you have in making a good argument is that unless you can see your opponent's point you cannot accurately refute it. Anti's generally don't want to understand, just refute, thus they make tactically poor arguments such as yours here.

No, I know what your argument is. Your only defense is to obfuscate the issue to confuse the lurker – as usual.

The question anti's should be asking first is: "Does the Book of Mormon say the People in the Americas' preserved their genetics to the point where it could be proven wrong with DNA. The answer is no.

Wrong, it has already been shown by the Lemba tribe that this can be done and over the same period of time covered by the bom. One of these days you’ll get over that selective memory.

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.