DNA v. Book of Mormon, Interesting Article in the Local Paper

[Trout]

SALT LAKE CITY — Plant geneticist Simon Southerton was a Mormon bishop in Brisbane, Australia when he woke up the morning of Aug. 3, 1998 to the shattering conclusion that his knowledge of science made it impossible for him to believe any longer in the Book of Mormon.

Read the article HERE: (http://www.daily-times.com/artman/publish/monday/article_12927.shtml)

[freelight]

SALT LAKE CITY — Plant geneticist Simon Southerton was a Mormon bishop in Brisbane, Australia when he woke up the morning of Aug. 3, 1998 to the shattering conclusion that his knowledge of science made it impossible for him to believe any longer in the Book of Mormon.

Read the article HERE: (http://www.daily-times.com/artman/publish/monday/article_12927.shtml)

Hi trout,

Here is an excellent site and video presentation on the whole DNA vs. the BOM issue. Southerton is also interviewed in this documentary. These are great to purchase to hand out to your lds relatives and friends.

http://www.mormonchallenge.com/


peace,

paul

[Trout]

Hi trout,

Here is an excellent site and video presentation on the whole DNA vs. the BOM issue. Southerton is also interviewed in this documentary. These are great to purchase to hand out to your lds relatives and friends.

http://www.mormonchallenge.com/


peace,

paul

Thanks for posting that link freelight, I've purchased a few of those videos in the past and handed them out. I like the way the video presents the evidence, it's done in a scientific way, as opposed to a religiously fanatical way.

[Cali_kiddo]

Thanks for posting that link freelight, I've purchased a few of those videos in the past and handed them out. I like the way the video presents the evidence, it's done in a scientific way, as opposed to a religiously fanatical way. Mormon challenge also has an excellent video (even better than the DNA one!) on the Book of Abraham for a mere 6 dollars. It's a great deal! I took one with me on a missions trip to the Philippines and we held a public showing of the two videos. About 40 people attended.

Here's a good introduction to how DNA evidence works, why it's an issue for Mormonism, and how to answer Mormons who try to explian it away: http://www.whichprophets.com/DNA.htm

[K.Graham]

In Short, DNA evidence doesn't disprove the BoM. It is amazing how so many anti-Mormon ministries have jumped onto this uncritically. This has been thoroughly dealt with recently but none of these critics seem to be aware of any responses. Here we find several articles listed which tackle this subject:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DNA.shtml

For thos interested in a Mormon perspective and from experts in the field, not a community college anthropologist and a plant geneticist. Being ex-Mormon doesn't add to one's credibility anyone more than being ex-Christian would adds credibility to an atheist using "science" to disprove creationism.

[Trout]

Greetings K. Graham,

Can you give us the gist of Jeff Lindsay's argument?

Is he on the "there were very few Lamanites" side of the issue?

Thanks

trout

[Sparko]

looks like Lindsay is saying that the genetic background of the people in the BOM who migrated to America could have had asiatic genes.

[K.Graham]

In short, the BoM mentions the existence of people who were there long before Lehi and his little party arrived on the scene. The true science of DNA tells us that it is practically unfathomable that we could expect to identify his genes 2400 years later after so much intermixing with the peoples already there.

For the most part, anti-Mormon arguments are beating up straw men. While they can rightfully criticize Mormon statements that seem to indicate the opposite (yes many Mormons assume all Indians are Lamanites), they cannot criticize the BoM as a text. In Lindsay's summary (but I suggest you read all the articles listed there):

"DNA analysis has proven to be a useful tool, but one must understand that it has many limitations. Many inferences made from DNA studies about population origins or demographic events "are often not consistent among themselves or with available linguistic, archeological, and paleoanthropological data" (Tarazona-Santos, 2001). The disagreements over the number of migrations, the peoples of origin, the presence of much variation or little variation in the founding genes (e.g., Ward, et al. 1991 and Torroni et al., 1993c, p. 604) the differences between Y-chromosome and mtDNA results, the challenges with contamination, and the conflicts with linguistic and other evidence, all suggest that much work remains to be done to reliably obtain interpret DNA results.

It is clear that the origins of the Americas are more complicated than previously thought. This applies not only to scientists, but to those who accept the Book of Mormon. Just as scientific progress requires abandoning old errant assumption, increased knowledge about the Americas and improved understanding of the Book of Mormon text itself shows that many Latter-day Saints have incorrectly assumed that the Americas were a vacuum prior to Lehi's arrival, and that Lehi's group provided the primary genetic source for all Native Americas. These errant assumptions should be abandoned, but since the text does not make such claims, all we need abandon is our misunderstanding, not a sacred volume of scripture that is indeed an authentic ancient text."

[Sparko]

What I understand about mitochondrial DNA is that it is contributed in whole by the mother (part of the ova) - It does not "mix" with anything from the father. It remains as an isolated DNA that is passed through the generations unchanged through the maternal line. That is how they can use it to trace ancestry of someone. Basically they look at the MDNA of a person and seen where the largest concentration of that MDNA is today and figure that's where that person's ancestors come from.

So if early hebrew's intermarried with native americans, then in the maternal line, the MDNA would have REPLACED the Asiatic MDNA. A native american would either have Asiatic MDNA OR Hebraic MDNA, but not both, or a combination of both. So today we should see a wide spread mix of those native americans with Hebrew MDNA and those with traditional Asiatic MNDA.

But we don't.

[Doc T]

What I understand about mitochondrial DNA is that it is contributed in whole by the mother (part of the ova) - It does not "mix" with anything from the father. It remains as an isolated DNA that is passed through the generations unchanged through the maternal line. That is how they can use it to trace ancestry of someone. Basically they look at the MDNA of a person and seen where the largest concentration of that MDNA is today and figure that's where that person's ancestors come from.

So if early hebrew's intermarried with native americans, then in the maternal line, the MDNA would have REPLACED the Asiatic MDNA. A native american would either have Asiatic MDNA OR Hebraic MDNA, but not both, or a combination of both. So today we should see a wide spread mix of those native americans with Hebrew MDNA and those with traditional Asiatic MNDA.

But we don't.
The problem, John, comes in when the female does not have any female offspring. Then her mDNA is stopped with her and is not passed on.

Doc

~

[Sparko]

well then, that line is dead and does not count any further. This can happen both on the hypothetical hebrew line and the Asian mDNA. The chances of it happening are equal for both lines and therefore cancel out. This does not solve the problem of there should be a mixture of hebrew mDNA in Native American populations and there is not.

[Doc T]

well then, that line is dead and does not count any further. This can happen both on the hypothetical hebrew line and the Asian mDNA. The chances of it happening are equal for both lines and therefore cancel out. This does not solve the problem of there should be a mixture of hebrew mDNA in Native American populations and there is not.
That is only true if you start with equal numbers of "Hebrew" mDNA and "Asian" mDNA. In the case of the BofM we started with very little mDNA not to mention we are not sure what the mDNA looked like.

From my reading of the BofM Lehi and his family were decendants of Joseph who was sold into Egypt. Joseph's wife Asenath, was an Egyptian. We have no idea what her mDNA was like and she may have had Asiatic mDNA for all we know.

Doc

~

[Sparko]

That is only true if you start with equal numbers of "Hebrew" mDNA and "Asian" mDNA. In the case of the BofM we started with very little mDNA not to mention we are not sure what the mDNA looked like.

From my reading of the BofM Lehi and his family were decendants of Joseph who was sold into Egypt. Joseph's wife Asenath, was an Egyptian. We have no idea what her mDNA was like and she may have had Asiatic mDNA for all we know.

Doc

~
If they were from the hebraic tribes, then their decendents would have the same mDNA as modern day decendents of the 12 tribes, and others from the middle east and egypt. That is the whole point of tracing mDNA, you can check the mDNA of a person today and find the largest population of that mDNA currently on the planet, and tell where that person's ancestors came from.

[Doc T]

If they were from the hebraic tribes, then their decendents would have the same mDNA as modern day decendents of the 12 tribes, and others from the middle east and egypt. That is the whole point of tracing mDNA, you can check the mDNA of a person today and find the largest population of that mDNA currently on the planet, and tell where that person's ancestors came from.
Then explain why Jewish women don't all have the same mDNA.

Doc

~

[fghtdir]

but were not most of the Lamanites killed in the final battle with Capt. Moroni? Would this not count for the mojority of the mDNA strands dying off?

[Sparko]

Then explain why Jewish women don't all have the same mDNA.

Doc

~
I will assume you mean all genetically jewish women who have been decended from the original tribes and not from families that converted to Judaism, or were adopted.

They all DO have similar mDNA. That is how they can trace that they are from the original Israelites. From what I understand, mDNA can drift a little, but remians enought the same that it can be traced back to the orginal group.

that is the whole point of using mDNA to trace populations.

[Cali_kiddo]

The problem with the Asenath argument, Doc, is that unless Asenath was from Scandinavia or Siberia, it doesn't solve the problem. The Native Americans don't have Egyptian DNA, either. Or African DNA. Or Middle Eastern DNA. They have Siberian, Chinese, and maybe some Scandinavian (I have seen conflicting data about that one, but it still doesn't matter for the Book of Mormon since the BoM peoples were not Scandinavians) DNA.

[rangerbob]

look, DNA means nothing to TBM's they had evidence of joseph smith being a false prophet way back during the year of 1843 with the kinderhook plates, then we have the polygamy revelation, the many first visions, and the changes in the book of mormon, history of the church and masons then the temple changes of 1990, blacks and the priesthood, then the big one, the book of abraham, if this doesnt show mormonism is a make up as we go along religion, then nothing will dent the dumb brains of a TBM. i say dumb because it is eaisier to type then cognitive dissonance

[Cali_kiddo]

Another problem with the "Joseph's wife was an Egyptian" argument just occurred to me. Lehi's descent was traced through the direct paternal line, so Joseph of Egypt's wife's DNA would not have affected Lehi's or his progeny's mDNA whatsover. Lehi got his mDNA from his mother. So did Sariah. Really, it is only Sariah's mDNA that we need be concerned about. Was Sariah's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother a Siberian or a Middle Easterner? Unless the former, Mormonism has a problem.

[Timothy Leary]

Devil's Advocate:

Does it occur to anyone that the DNA tests are comparing basically the tribe of Judah - and forgetting the other 11 tribes?

A better (but inconclusive) test would be to see if the Cohen gene could be found in the tribes.

[Sparko]

Devil's Advocate:

Does it occur to anyone that the DNA tests are comparing basically the tribe of Judah - and forgetting the other 11 tribes?

A better (but inconclusive) test would be to see if the Cohen gene could be found in the tribes.

I think the 12 tribes are so intermingled today, Yoshi, that any DNA test would be testing all 12 tribes by default. their MDNA for all 12 tribes would be identical in any case since they all come from the same maternal ancestor (Sarah)

[Timothy Leary]

The vast majority of Jews today are from the tribe of Judah. There are a small amount of Jews from the other tribes, but very few. Maybe 5% (that's a very liberal estimate - it's probably less) of the tribes were NOT exiled. Thus, today's Jews contain the DNA of those 5% and converts to Judaism.

At best, we're missing 95% of the picture.

Hadn't thought of MDNA, but that wouldn't work totally either, as it doesn't account for the Egyptians who joined Am Yisrael during the Exodus. (Or the people who joined Am Yisrael after Haman's attempted genocide, descendants of Ruth, etc.)

I think the 12 tribes are so intermingled today, Yoshi, that any DNA test would be testing all 12 tribes by default. their MDNA for all 12 tribes would be identical in any case since they all come from the same maternal ancestor (Sarah)

[Sparko]

The vast majority of Jews today are from the tribe of Judah. There are a small amount of Jews from the other tribes, but very few. Maybe 5% (that's a very liberal estimate - it's probably less) of the tribes were NOT exiled. Thus, today's Jews contain the DNA of those 5% and converts to Judaism.

At best, we're missing 95% of the picture.

Hadn't thought of MDNA, but that wouldn't work totally either, as it doesn't account for the Egyptians who joined Am Yisrael during the Exodus. (Or the people who joined Am Yisrael after Haman's attempted genocide, descendants of Ruth, etc.)

Well if you go back and read the links at the start of this thread, Mitochondrial DNA is what was tested, since it is passed down the maternal line intact through the mother's egg. So all descendants of Sarah, no matter what tribe, would have nearly identical MDNA, with very little drift. They tested Native Americans and found that they did not have any MDNA in common with any Jews. That means they are not descendants of some lost tribe of israel. If I recall correctly, the mormons claim a very specific line that did not come from Ruth or any other add-on peoples, but is tracable back to Sarah and Abraham.

[Timothy Leary]

Well if you go back and read the links at the start of this thread, Mitochondrial DNA is what was tested, since it is passed down the maternal line intact through the mother's egg. So all descendants of Sarah, no matter what tribe, would have nearly identical MDNA, with very little drift. They tested Native Americans and found that they did not have any MDNA in common with any Jews. That means they are not descendants of some lost tribe of israel. If I recall correctly, the mormons claim a very specific line that did not come from Ruth or any other add-on peoples, but is tracable back to Sarah and Abraham.

Mormons claim Lehi's family to be of the tribe of Manaseh. Assuming this person existed (which, for the record, i don't believe) and Lehi, like King David, could trace his maternal lineage to a convert (which is quite possible), then there would be no mDNA to trace.

[Sparko]

Mormons claim Lehi's family to be of the tribe of Manaseh. Assuming this person existed (which, for the record, i don't believe) and Lehi, like King David, could trace his maternal lineage to a convert (which is quite possible), then there would be no mDNA to trace.


Hmmm. According to Genesis, Mannasah was the son of Joseph and Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera, Priest of On. His second son was Ephraim. (Gen 41:50-51) so I guess you are right, the mDNA would be egyptian and not Hebrew unless the sons married hebrew women. But as far as I can recall no egyptian or middle eastern mDNA is found in American Indians either, but Asian mDNA. It also did traces of Y chromosome transmission which is passed on through the paternal line, as far as I recall, and that would directly link back to Joseph and to Abraham and link to the rest of the tribes that way.

Here is a link to the article for more info. very interesting btw.

http://www.whichprophets.com/DNA.htm

[rangerbob]

do we ever stop to think someone might have jumped over the fence?

Please stop disrupting threads with off topic onliners like this. you have been sent various PMs and an an email letting you know this is not allowed and what the consequences of doing so will be.

[Timothy Leary]

Interesting. FTR, it is my contention that this is just one of those issues that is ultimately unprovable either way. The conclusion is probably mostly right. But I do believe that a small amoung of Jews (or perhaps, Samaritans) did live in the Americas based on a few findings.

Oh yeah... to play Devil's Advocate one more time, there are some who believe the "lost tribes" all went to Asia :tongue:

Hmmm. According to Genesis, Mannasah was the son of Joseph and Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera, Priest of On. His second son was Ephraim. (Gen 41:50-51) so I guess you are right, the mDNA would be egyptian and not Hebrew unless the sons married hebrew women. But as far as I can recall no egyptian or middle eastern mDNA is found in American Indians either, but Asian mDNA. It also did traces of Y chromosome transmission which is passed on through the paternal line, as far as I recall, and that would directly link back to Joseph and to Abraham and link to the rest of the tribes that way.

Here is a link to the article for more info. very interesting btw.

http://www.whichprophets.com/DNA.htm

[Cali_kiddo]

Hi guys,

Joseph of Egypt's wife's mDNA does not affect Lehi's mDNA, because Hebrews trace their tribal descent through the paternal line. So Joseph's son would have had Egyptian mDNA, but if the son married a Hebrew woman then his son would in turn have Hebrew mDNA. So since the vast majority of women among the Hebrews would be from a Hebrew rather than foreign line, these kinds of admixture would tend to remove themselves from the paternal line within a generation or two. Of course, they could always come back into the paternal line at a later date, and nothing precludes Sariah from having had an Arab or Egyptian as a maternal ancestor. In fact, the fact that men marrying foreign women would bring the women into their tribe rather than leaving to join the woman's tribe would tend to promote "watering down" of Hebrew mDNA.

On the other hand, Y-chromosome DNA would remain intact, as this kind of DNA is passed down through a direct paternal line. Lehi's Y-chromosomes would have been indisputably Hebrew. DNA studies in America have focused primarily upon mDNA, but have also included some Y-chromosome research.

It is also important to note that Hebrew DNA is part of a much larger family of Semitic DNA. This family includes Arabs, Cannanites, some Egyptians, and the like. No Semitic DNA belonging to any of these groups has been found among Native American populations. In fact, neither has any DNA from Africa, or from Western/Southern Europe. The closest thing to Hebrew DNA that has been found in Native American populations is Scandinavian DNA. The rest appears to be from Siberia, Mongolia, and perhaps Polynesia and Southeast Asia (these last two are currently under debate). So unless people from Scandinavia or Mongolia intermarried with Hebrews, which seems highly unlikely, we have no basis for questioning the evidence as it stands except to insist that further studies could still find small quantities of Semitic DNA in some as yet untested or inadequately tested Native American population.

-CK

-----------------------------------------------

Actually, I should point out that I overstated my case in the last post. There is one other ground for challenging DNA criticisms of the Book of Mormon. If we accept a Limited Geography theory, then the utter decimation of Native American populations by the Europeans and their diseases could have created a "genetic bottleneck" that weeded out the Semitic DNA. For example, let's say that one in three of the Aztecs' 25 million people before Columbus arrived had had Lamanite/Semitic DNA. Since the population was reduced to 3 million by massacre and disease, it is a definite possibility (though perhaps not probable) that the one-third who had Lamanite DNA could have all or mostly been among the dead. Note that some scholars think the estimate of 25 million pre-Columbian inhabitants is much exaggerated, but even if it had been half that, we could still have lost our one-third.

The destruction wrought on the Native Americans at the hand of Europeans was horrific, and certainly not worthy of the sanction the Book of Mormon gives to it. The Book says,

And it came to pass that the angel said unto me: Behold the wrath of God is upon the seed of thy brethren.
And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land.
And it came to pass that I beheld the Spirit of God, that it wrought upon other Gentiles; and they went forth out of captivity [from the great and abominable church], upon the many waters.
And it came to pass that I beheld many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the land of promise; and I beheld the wrath of God, that it was upon the seed of my brethren; and they were scattered before the Gentiles and were smitten.
And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain.
And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles who had gone forth out of captivity did humble themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them.

Here the decimation of Native populations is represented as the righteous wrath of God, and Europeans were merely his instruments to this end.

Notice also that Columbus, whose voyages took him to most of the Carribbean Islands and only much later to Panama, as represented as having come over and discovered genuine Lamanites. Unfortunately it might be difficult to test natives of the Caribbean islands for Lamanite DNA, since most of those populations were completely destroyed. Also, the passage seems to imply that it was Protestants who scattered and smote the Lamanites and possessed the promised land, which in this case can only have been North America (as Central and South America were Spanish possessions). This would tend to discredit a Limited Geography theory.

In any case, the devastation wreaked upon Native American populations may make it impossible for DNA to ever provide a definitive answer to the question of a Hebrew population in America over a thousand years ago. All DNA can really give us is high probabilities that they were not here. Of course, when used to bolster the already very compelling archaeological evidence (or lack thereof), DNA is still highly significant.

[Cali_kiddo]

Actually, I should point out that I overstated my case in the last post. There is one other ground for challenging DNA criticisms of the Book of Mormon. If we accept a Limited Geography theory, then the utter decimation of Native American populations by the Europeans and their diseases could have created a "genetic bottleneck" that weeded out the Semitic DNA. For example, let's say that one in three of the Aztecs' 25 million people before Columbus arrived had had Lamanite/Semitic DNA. Since the population was reduced to 3 million by massacre and disease, it is a definite possibility (though perhaps not probable) that the one-third who had Lamanite DNA could have all or mostly been among the dead. Note that some scholars think the estimate of 25 million pre-Columbian inhabitants is much exaggerated, but even if it had been half that, we could still have lost our one-third.

The destruction wrought on the Native Americans at the hand of Europeans was horrific, and certainly not worthy of the sanction the Book of Mormon gives to it. The Book says,

And it came to pass that the angel said unto me: Behold the wrath of God is upon the seed of thy brethren.
And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land.
And it came to pass that I beheld the Spirit of God, that it wrought upon other Gentiles; and they went forth out of captivity [from the great and abominable church], upon the many waters.
And it came to pass that I beheld many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the land of promise; and I beheld the wrath of God, that it was upon the seed of my brethren; and they were scattered before the Gentiles and were smitten.
And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain.
And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles who had gone forth out of captivity did humble themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them.

Here the decimation of Native populations is represented as the righteous wrath of God, and Europeans were merely his instruments to this end.

Notice also that Columbus, whose voyages took him to most of the Carribbean Islands and only much later to Panama, as represented as having come over and discovered genuine Lamanites. Unfortunately it might be difficult to test natives of the Caribbean islands for Lamanite DNA, since most of those populations were completely destroyed. Also, the passage seems to imply that it was Protestants who scattered and smote the Lamanites and possessed the promised land, which in this case can only have been North America (as Central and South America were Spanish possessions). This would tend to discredit a Limited Geography theory.

In any case, the devastation wreaked upon Native American populations may make it impossible for DNA to ever provide a definitive answer to the question of a Hebrew population in America over a thousand years ago. All DNA can really give us is high probabilities that they were not here. Of course, when used to bolster the already very compelling archaeological evidence (or lack thereof), DNA is still highly significant.

back to back posts are against campus decorum. I combined the two posts into one (see above)

[rangerbob]

what is a genuine Lamnite, and can i walk up to one today and ask him/her for a DNA test?

You've been warned about making onliners before.