The General Authority has already put to paper its disagreement with the limited geography theory
The question now is - who speaks for the church? Its prophet and GA, or a group of scientists and apologists.
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.
Amazing, though none hold a candle to the scholarly integrity of work from BYU, at least in the philosophical and archaeological realms. Some of their ideas and finds have been unbelievable...
In reality Reno, Southerton has access to the info Du continues to blather on about. If you want to read his response you can do so here, where he takes the results from an even more recent study that clarifies the issues discussed on the youtube series. Its about half way down.. You will see that Southerton is very up to date on the current status of DNA studies. The facts are that this more recent, larger and more detailed study he cites totally wipes away Crandall's arguement. Crandall makes an even more egregious error by looking for evidence to prove his theory, instead of letting the evidence lead to the theory. We'll see play out below.
Secondly, DNA studies have progressed to the point where the Mitochondrial haplogroups such as X which is the focus of the dispute have been further subcategorized. The subgroup of X found in native americans is not common to semitic peoples such as Jews, an it further indicates a separation that occured an estimated 10-20K years ago.
You see what Crandall doesn't tell you is the current synthesis of the data and distracts the observer in only focusing on the X haplogroup without providing the larger picture. Two types of data have been used as the basis for the molecular genetic evidence for the migration from Asia - mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Y chromosome DNA. This has expanded more recently into other DNA related studies such as Polymorphic Alu insertions; Retroviral DNA elements; Intestinal microbial flora and Domesticated animals. These studies all point to Asian migration as the source of native americans, but I'll just focus on the origional two. Based upon the DNA data both here in the americas and in Asia, three different migrations have been proposed. The first are hypothesized to have brought mtDNA haplogroups A-D and Y chromosome haplogroup P-M45a and Q-242/Q-M3 haplotypes. A second, slightly later migration is hypothesized to have entered the Americas somewhat later, bringing mtDNA haplogroup X and Y chromosome haplogroups P-M45b, C-M130, and R1a1-M17, possibly using an interior route. A third and final migration is hypothesized to have taken place after the last glacial maximum in northern North America. Now, is the Haplogroup X the same as that in Hebrews, the answer is no. The New World haplogroup X2a is as different from any of the Old World X2b, X2c, X2d, X2e and X2f lineages as they are from each other, indicating an early origin "likely at the very beginning of their expansion and spread from the Near East. In fact Southerton goes into even greater detail on the X group issue in his answer.
So you see, by attempting to focus all the attention on a very generic (at the time) identification of a group Crandall causes the forest to be lost because of the trees. All of these lines of DNA evidence point to a Asian/Siberian lineage of the native americans:
Y-chromosome
mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA)
Polymorphic Alu insertions
Retroviral DNA elements
Intestinal microbial flora
Domesticated animals
Add other scientific specialities and discipline's results such as archeology, anthropology and linguistic development, all indicate an asian source. Interestingly, do a google search on Hebrew DNA and you will find an immense amount of data and studies. This would supply a huge wealth of direct comparative information that Crandall could have used to evaluate the study he spoke on in the youtube post. He doesn't even acknowledge it.
Finally, Crandall is using the DNA to defend one of four competing mormon theories for the bom lands. That leads itself to other issues regarding the viability of the testimony of the bom.
The only appear in non-peer reviewed pubs like what FARMS/Maxwell inst. put out. The don't appear in real periodicals because their application of the science is so unsupported that they would be embarrassed in front of their scientific peers for even thinking about that outside of the church.
The first sign of solid research and scholarship is the desire by its practcioer(s) to SHARE it with the rest of the overall community in an open and straight forward fashion for critical review.
Picking and choosing who does so or keeping it among those inclined to support you, while perhaps not dishonest, is, well shall we say a bit suspect...
I ran across this article from 2006 today, and thought it was interesting...it is excerpted according to FR posting rules
Officially, the Mormon Church says that nothing in the Mormon scriptures is incompatible with DNA evidence, and that the genetic studies are being twisted to attack the church.
“We would hope that church members would not simply buy into the latest DNA arguments being promulgated by those who oppose the church for some reason or other,” said Michael Otterson, a Salt Lake City-based spokesman for the Mormon church.
“The truth is, the Book of Mormon will never be proved or disproved by science,” he (Otteson) said.
Unofficially, church leaders have tacitly approved an alternative interpretation of the Book of Mormon by church apologists – a term used for scholars who defend the faith.
The apologists say Southerton and others are relying on a traditional reading of the Book of Mormon – that the Hebrews were the first and sole inhabitants of the New World and eventually populated the North and South American continents.
The latest scholarship, they argue, shows that the text should be interpreted differently. They say the events described in the Book of Mormon were confined to a small section of Central America, and that the Hebrew tribe was small enough that its DNA was swallowed up by the existing Native Americans.
“It would be a virtual certainly that their DNA would be swamped,” said Daniel Peterson, a professor of Near Eastern studies at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, part of the worldwide Mormon educational system, and editor of a magazine devoted to Mormon apologetics. “And if that is the case, you couldn’t tell who was a Lamanite descendant.”
Southerton said the new interpretation was counter to both a plain reading of the text and the words of Mormon leaders.
“The apologists feel that they are almost above the prophets,” Southerton said. “They have completely reinvented the narrative in a way that would be completely alien to members of the church and most of the prophets.”
“The apologists feel that they are almost above the prophets,” Southerton said. “They have completely reinvented the narrative in a way that would be completely alien to members of the church and most of the prophets.”
Imagine THAT!
We will soon see what these titans of mormon DNA really say when they go to press in peer reviewed journals.
The General Authority has already put to paper its disagreement with the limited geography theory
The question now is - who speaks for the church? Its prophet and GA, or a group of scientists and apologists.
Tee hee, I thought it was Delphi.
I am sure they will gladly share it among the several LDS linked “scientific” organizations who will congratulate them on their thorough and excellent work...
Oh I am sure the contributions of mormom dna research will go hand in hand with the rest of science.
There HAS to be a more fitting word than IRONY.
There is but I cannot use it on a religion thread...
Someone said earlier that Jesus didnt think things we did were funny...
Just goes to show that some here dont know God...
Or dont know He has a sense of humor...
The God that designed DNA certainly has a sense of humor...
He was thinking ahead...
Did Joey Smith write a “prophecy” about this day ???
I’m sure he did...
2,345 Nephi “It shall come to pass save wherefore unto...DNA will cause great destruction to the evil empire of “prophet” of the mormon god to come to pass before two centuries have passed...” (Desert Newless, Feb 19, 2009 er Feb 19 1839)
We are created in God’s image
We have a sense of humor, so why wouldn’t God.
How about an armadillo...
Yes, God has a sense of humor, a big one...
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.