Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

awesome0

DNA, Skin and Mark

Recommended Posts

I know there is a lot of discussion regarding the DNA evidence of the BOM. Have any of you ever thought some of the lack of evidence could be because the DNA of the lamanites was altered by God's "mark" on their skins.

This mark came after they separated themselves. For the mark to persist across generations, their DNA needed to have changed in some fashion (perhaps by marrying the locals, etc.). I suppose if Nephi was Jewish he would have viewed marrying the locals as a curse, which changed the color of his brethren's skin.

If their DNA wasn't altered, it wouldn't have been passed down to generations unless you believe in lamarkian evoluation.

Share this post


Link to post

Could it have come about because the Lamanites mixed with an existing darker skinned population?

A related question. Is the blackness that came upon the Canaanites because the land was cursed with "much heat" the same type of thing as the mark of dark skin that came upon the Lamanites? I think they are different as with the Canaanites, it was the result of a curse and with the Lamanites, the dark skin was actually part of a curse.

Share this post


Link to post

awesome0:

I believe the difference between the Lamanites and the Nephites was political and no genetic.

Share this post


Link to post

So are you implying their skin/race didn't change. I think it is fair to say they were marked, unless I missed the barn on that one.

If they were marked (i.e. skin color changed), then their DNA would have needed to change as well.

Share this post


Link to post

So are you implying their skin/race didn't change. I think it is fair to say they were marked, unless I missed the barn on that one.

If they were marked (i.e. skin color changed), then their DNA would have needed to change as well.

13Now we will return again to the Amlicites, for they also had a mark set upon them; yea, they set the mark upon themselves, yea, even a mark of red upon their foreheads. 14Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separatedfrom thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them.

15And again: I will set a mark upon him that mingleth his seed with thy brethren, that they may be cursed also

Share this post


Link to post

Given that the mark is passed via sex to offspring with those who mingled with the lamanites, it sounds like mark/curse did change the DNA of the Lamanites. The question is did God alter their skin Himself, or did there skin change and get marked via assimilation with the locals which a practicing Jew (Nephi) would have view as a curse.

So are we chasing are tails looking for DNA evidence when its clear pretty early on that the DNA of the lamanites was modified somehow.

Share this post


Link to post

Given that the mark is passed via sex to offspring with those who mingled with the lamanites, it sounds like mark/curse did change the DNA of the Lamanites. The question is did God alter their skin Himself, or did there skin change and get marked via assimilation with the locals which a practicing Jew (Nephi) would have view as a curse.

So are we chasing are tails looking for DNA evidence when its clear pretty early on that the DNA of the lamanites was modified somehow.

I meant to include the following from the eighth chapter of Since Cumorah. If the good doctor is correct, a person can move along the whiteness-darkness spectrum within his own lifetime as his lifestyle changes because the status is directly based on lifestyle. He supports his argument further in subsequent paragraphs, but I don't want to make this so long nobody will read it.

(I do think your larger point that Lehi's current descendants' do not have exactly the same DNA as the original colony is correct.)

The dark skin is mentioned as the mark of a general way of life; it is a Gypsy or Bedouin type of darkness, "black" and "white" being used in their Oriental sense (as in Egyptian), black and loathsome being contrasted to white and delightsome (2 Nephi 5:21

Share this post


Link to post

Given that the mark is passed via sex to offspring with those who mingled with the lamanites, it sounds like mark/curse did change the DNA of the Lamanites. The question is did God alter their skin Himself, or did there skin change and get marked via assimilation with the locals which a practicing Jew (Nephi) would have view as a curse.

So are we chasing are tails looking for DNA evidence when its clear pretty early on that the DNA of the lamanites was modified somehow.

Huh I think you really ought to read that again.

Share this post


Link to post
13Now we will return again to the Amlicites, for they also had a mark set upon them; yea, they set the mark upon themselves, yea, even a mark of red upon their foreheads. 14Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separatedfrom thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them.

15And again: I will set a mark upon him that mingleth his seed with thy brethren, that they may be cursed also

Yes, yes. But there is also:

And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.

Alma 3:6

Share this post


Link to post

I tend to interpret the Lamanite mark/cursing texts in the BoM as priestly purity/impurity judgments about the results of intermarriage. But I don't see how this fits into a framework of altering DNA. Marriage doesn't alter your own DNA. And your choice of spouse will help establish the DNA of your children, but I don't think saying that it alters their DNA is accurate.

Share this post


Link to post

Or it could be that there is no evidence of DNA because there were no Laminates, and it is all mythology. If you take that position then you can accept all the overriding physical evidence and not have to do mental gymnastics to make it all fit. Now if we did find a group of Native Americans with the correct DNA then it is plausible to believe they have Jewish ancestry and the BofM story is at a minimum plausible if not correct. The conclusion needs to fit the evidence. So to make speculation so we can get the conclusion we want is fun and interesting at times but not rational, and will very seldom if ever lead to the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
So to make speculation so we can get the conclusion we want is fun and interesting at times but not rational, and will very seldom if ever lead to the truth.

Precisely the problem we see in your post as well.

Share this post


Link to post

Or it could be that there is no evidence of DNA because there were no Laminates, and it is all mythology.

I'm not sure what DNA has to do with coating something in plastic. (Just kidding, I have an unhealthy enjoyment of bad puns.)

If you take that position then you can accept all the overriding physical evidence and not have to do mental gymnastics to make it all fit. Now if we did find a group of Native Americans with the correct DNA then it is plausible to believe they have Jewish ancestry and the BofM story is at a minimum plausible if not correct. The conclusion needs to fit the evidence. So to make speculation so we can get the conclusion we want is fun and interesting at times but not rational, and will very seldom if ever lead to the truth.

How do you reconcile the perceived nonexistence of Lamanites with all the evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon?

Yours under the scientific oaks,

Nathair /|\

Share this post


Link to post

Or it could be that there is no evidence of DNA because there were no Laminates, and it is all mythology.

24 And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.

25 But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.

Share this post


Link to post

Or it could be that there is no evidence of DNA because there were no Laminates, and it is all mythology. If you take that position then you can accept all the overriding physical evidence and not have to do mental gymnastics to make it all fit. Now if we did find a group of Native Americans with the correct DNA then it is plausible to believe they have Jewish ancestry and the BofM story is at a minimum plausible if not correct. The conclusion needs to fit the evidence. So to make speculation so we can get the conclusion we want is fun and interesting at times but not rational, and will very seldom if ever lead to the truth.

I tend to think of beliefs as updating with new information, but they are always based upon my priors. Your explanation of course is also consistent, but my fundamental question is should we expect to find strong DNA markers of Jewish ancestry if they DNA of the Lamanites was either changed by divine intervention or by intermingling very early on. Should our prior be that they have Jewish DNA, or should our prior be that their DNA was fundamentally changed early on. Then based on the prior which seems more evidence, we can then update our beliefs with additional information.

Share this post


Link to post

awesome0:

I believe the difference between the Lamanites and the Nephites was political and no genetic.

So are you implying their skin/race didn't change. I think it is fair to say they were marked, unless I missed the barn on that one.

If they were marked (i.e. skin color changed), then their DNA would have needed to change as well.

something interesting in another book reguarding "skins"...

from: http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/

read in Jasher about "The Garments of Skin made for Adam Stolen by Ham..."

7:24 And the garments of skin which God made for Adam and his wife, when they went out of the garden, were given to Cush.

25 For after the death of Adam and his wife, the garments were given to Enoch, the son of Jared, and when Enoch was taken up to God, he gave them to Methuselah, his son.

26 And at the death of Methuselah, Noah took them and brought them to the ark, and they were with him until he went out of the ark.

27 And in their going out, Ham stole those garments from Noah his father, and he took them and hid them from his brothers.

28 And when Ham begat his first born Cush, he gave him the garments in secret, and they were with Cush many days.

29 And Cush also concealed them from his sons and brothers, and when Cush had begotten Nimrod, he gave him those garments through his love for him, and Nimrod grew up, and when he was twenty years old he put on those garments.

30 And Nimrod became strong when he put on the garments, and God gave him might and strength, and he was a mighty hunter in the earth, yea, he was a mighty hunter in the field, and he hunted the animals and he built altars, and he offered upon them the animals before the Lord.

OK - Jasher has part of it, some of the other older texts have another account, I'm too lazy to find it all now, but in these scriptures, their skins - AKA Garments of skin - AKA garments... were passed down from generation to generation, and they were cursed after they were stolen... there is this entire account of the skins (garments), how they were handed down to Nimrod, gave Nimrod strength, but after Ham stole them, they were cursed... this is all talking about garments though - and the power/protection that went along with them. It is possible that "skin" is talking about their clothing, about garments, and not actually about their personal skin...

Share this post


Link to post

I know there is a lot of discussion regarding the DNA evidence of the BOM. Have any of you ever thought some of the lack of evidence could be because the DNA of the lamanites was altered by God's "mark" on their skins.

This mark came after they separated themselves. For the mark to persist across generations, their DNA needed to have changed in some fashion (perhaps by marrying the locals, etc.). I suppose if Nephi was Jewish he would have viewed marrying the locals as a curse, which changed the color of his brethren's skin.

If their DNA wasn't altered, it wouldn't have been passed down to generations unless you believe in lamarkian evoluation.

First of all, there is an abundance of DNA evidence that supports the BOM and causes problems for conventional theories of American Indian origins. (see my next post)

Second, the DNA that determines skin color and the DNA that indicates lineage (Y-chromosomes and Mitochondrial DNA) are not the same. So I don't see how this theory makes sense.

Third, change of skin color in 2 or 3 generations has been observed and reported in modern times (1960s and 1980s) in an endogamous group of Yemenite Jews called the Habbani by two British reseaerchers named Towne and Hulse. [1]

[1] Towne & Hulse, Generational change in skin color variation among Habbani Yemeni Jews | Hum Biol. 1990 Feb; 62(1):85-100

Share this post


Link to post

It is possible that "skin" is talking about their clothing, about garments, and not actually about their personal skin...

Alma 3 explains what happened most clearly:

6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.

7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.

8 And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.

9 And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed.

10 Therefore, whosoever suffered himself to be led away by the Lamanites was called under that head, and there was a mark set upon him.

If Alma 3 is accurately conveying what happened, it would appear that it was a visible "mark" that came from God instead of being chosen by the individuals themselves. And the mark was such that the Nephites could see it and avoid marrying those people.

Share this post


Link to post

I know there is a lot of discussion regarding the DNA evidence of the BOM. Have any of you ever thought some of the lack of evidence could be because the DNA of the lamanites was altered by God's "mark" on their skins.

This mark came after they separated themselves. For the mark to persist across generations, their DNA needed to have changed in some fashion (perhaps by marrying the locals, etc.). I suppose if Nephi was Jewish he would have viewed marrying the locals as a curse, which changed the color of his brethren's skin.

If their DNA wasn't altered, it wouldn't have been passed down to generations unless you believe in lamarkian evoluation.

Some DNA evidence that support the Book of Mormon.

1. In 1996, Peter Underhill PhD of Stanford university calculated the age of the M3 mutation that is found in a high percentage of American Indians in virtually all tribes. Using an observed Y-chromosome mutation rate of 21 per 10,000 (Weber & Wong) [1] and a generation length of 27 years Underhill calculated the age of M3 at 2147 years BP. In other words most American Indians were the direct descendents of a man who lived around 150 BC. [2]

2. Although Underhill and his college, Zhivitovsky, spent years developing an "effective" mutation rate as a solution to this problem, this "effective" rate of 7 per 10,000 has 2 notable failures in the field.

(a) Brigette Pakendorf (a German scientist) found that the effective rate gave a date far too old for the Yakut expansion in Siberia. Whereas, a mutation rate observed in father-son pairs in Germany and Poland of 28 per 10,000 (Kayser) provided a date of 800 years BP which coincided with linguistic and historic evidence. [3]

(b) Indian researchers calculated the age of the Q haplogroup defined by the M242 mutation in India within a range of 34K-75K using the "effective" mutation rate developed by Underhill and Zhivotovsky. This is impossible, because the Q haplogroup has only existed for 15K-20K years. Plugging in Kayser's rate provides a believable 8.5K-18K range for the entry of Q into India. [4]

3. The Y-chromosome lineage group, Q, is the most common pre-Columbian lineage of American Indians. Q is found all over the Middle East; ie, 2% of Lebanese, 2.5% of Saudi Arabians, 5% of Iraqi Jews and 15% of Yemenite Jews. (Shen 2004) [5]

4. The strain of Q found in living American Indians is a particular strain that contains a mutation called M346. The M346 mutation is found in The Middle East, but not in North East Asia the last I heard.

All of these scientific findings and more support the Book of Mormon and create problems for other theories of American Indian origins.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Weber, J. L. & Wong, C. (1993) Hum. Mol. Genet. 2, 1123

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...