Genetics And The Book Of Mormon

[happy]

My point is that you are looking at things based on what we know today. My assumption is that scientific breakthroughs over time will destroy those problems. Whether it be 20 or 50 or 200 or 1,000, we will eventually know.

And I am disagreeing. However I don't hold science to the same degree as you do, perhaps?

[robuchan]

And I am disagreeing. However I don't hold science to the same degree as you do, perhaps?

Maybe. I think it's undeniable that scientific understanding is increasing and expected to continue to increase. Extrapolating that out, there's a point in the future where scientific evidence (and I'm combining DNA, anthropology, archeaology, etc) will be solid and complete enough that it will prove the BOM to be an historical record or not. My question is when will that be? 10, 20, 50, 100, 1000 years from now?

[KevinG]

Maybe. I think it's undeniable that scientific understanding is increasing and expected to continue to increase. Extrapolating that out, there's a point in the future where scientific evidence (and I'm combining DNA, anthropology, archeaology, etc) will be solid and complete enough that it will prove the BOM to be an historical record or not. My question is when will that be? 10, 20, 50, 100, 1000 years from now?

The science isn't the sticking point. It is the multiple emigrations and intermarriages coupled with the unknown in the DNA of the first Book of Mormon peoples that makes putting together a comprehensive picture of their origins impossible.

[Carborendum]

I get atheists using this to show that any Christians have it wrong. But how can other Christians hope to use this as evidence of fraud in the Book of Mormon? If we were to follow the genetic traceability, all men would have the same Y chromosome info because of Adam and Noah. But we don't. Yet it's ok for the Bible to have this error, but not ok for the BoM to have a similar (not the same issue).

Additionally, the BoM is not an absolute in the races/ethnicities in the new world, since there were other peoples and races to be found on the continent throughout the centuries.

[Robert F. Smith]

I get atheists using this to show that any Christians have it wrong. But how can other Christians hope to use this as evidence of fraud in the Book of Mormon? If we were to follow the genetic traceability, all men would have the same Y chromosome info because of Adam and Noah. But we don't. Yet it's ok for the Bible to have this error, but not ok for the BoM to have a similar (not the same issue).

Owing to slight changes in the Y-chromosome through time, we have a kind of molecular clock available to us to chart ancient migrations, enabling us to go back in time to earlier and earlier ancestors, theoretically leading to the first humans. The same applies to mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). If you submit a sample of your DNA to National Geographic or other large program, they will provide you with a chart of where some of your ancestors came from and show how that matches with ancient migrations.

Edited August 20, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm no DNA scientist, but this is my interpretation of the evidence.

Critics: We know a lot about Native American DNA, and we can show that it can not allow for a large contribution of Middle Eastern ancestors.

Those who take a negative position fail to admit

(1) that they know very little about Amerind DNA,

(2) that they falsely assume that all Amerinds are descendants of the Lamanites (hence Israelites).

(3) and that they falsely insist on looking for a large Middle Eastern contribution to Amerind DNA.

False premises, false conclusion. Problem: classic straw man.

Apologists: Yeah but you forgot to account for this and this and this and this.

Completely false portrayal of LDS scientists' arguments.

Neutral, informed judge's decision: The critics are most likely right, but the apologists have successfully shown a remote possibility that the studies are incomplete enough that I will rule for the apologists at this time.

How, decent of you!

My question: the progress we are making in terms of DNA science and anthropology and archaelogy is happening exponentially. We know 10 times more than we knew 50 years ago. And we will likely know 20 times more than we know now in 50 years. How soon before we can answer this definitely?

How soon before the critics can say, this is proven 100%. And the only response from the apologists will be to shrug their shoulders and say yeah but we still believe spiritually, so we think maybe there is a supernatural explanation like God changed the scientific evidence.

Or on the flip side, how soon before there is enough scientific evidence for the apologists, that we can definitely say the Book of Mormon has been proven to be historically true. And the only thing thing the critics can do is ignore it with hard hearts because they don't want to believe in the spiritual ramifications?

I think if you look at the timeline of scientific progress, it's hard to deny this will occur at some point in the future. When?

I don't know how long, but it is very dependent on archeological recovery of skeletal remains in prime areas of Mesoamerica, and a willingness to do DNA testing on those remains.

Most of those discussing the matter have already decided what is true and refuse to consider legitimate scientific data. The apriorism is palpable.

The same applies to other areas of scientific inquiry about the Book of Mormon. I have found some people on this Board clearly afraid to address such issues.

[bu11fr0g]

It already has been answered scientifically against being the explanation for the majority or the plurality of the source of dna of the american indians.

[Robert F. Smith]

It already has been answered scientifically against being the explanation for the majority or the plurality of the source of dna of the american indians.

CFR

This is a perfect illustration of what I just said about "some people on this Board clearly afraid to address such issues." False premises = false conclusion.

[ANACO]

Owing to slight changes in the Y-chromosome through time, we have a kind of molecular clock available to us to chart ancient migrations, enabling us to go back in time to earlier and earlier ancestors, theoretically leading to the first humans. The same applies to mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). If you submit a sample of your DNA to National Geographic or other large program, they will provide you with a chart of where some of your ancestors came from and show how that matches with ancient migrations.

Have you done this with a sample of your DNA? Where did you ancestor come from according to the National Geographic?

Lucy in Africa? Iraq? Or the Garden of Eden in Missouri?

The problem with this is the National Geographic has to make conclusions contrary to religious beliefs - but in accord with the latest scientific dogma.

Edited August 20, 2012 by ANACO

[ERayR]

The problem with this is the National Geographic has to make conclusions contrary to religious beliefs - but in accord with the latest scientific dogma.

False premise. The NG conclusions do not have to be either or. It is in your limited view that it must be so.

[Robert F. Smith]

Have you done this with a sample of your DNA? Where did you ancestor come from according to the National Geographic?

Yes, and Natl Geog put me on the map in Europe with my haplogroup.

Lucy in Africa? Iraq? Or the Garden of Eden in Missouri?

The problem with this is the National Geographic has to make conclusions contrary to religious beliefs - but in accord with the latest scientific dogma.

Most of what the Natl Geog DNA migration maps provide is the same as found now in most anthropology textbooks, clearly taking us back to Africa.

Lucy is non-human and much too early to be considered in that grouping.

The Natl Geog test results are straightforward and do not in any way run contrary to reasonable religious beliefs. Of course there are fringe belief systems out there which contradict the Bible, for no good reason that I can understand -- except for failure to master biblical languages and archeology.

[Carborendum]

With all the mixing that has happened in the past 3000 years, especially all the UNRECORDED mixing and migration throughout human history, I'm just not buying this as an accurate science. Perhaps for a largely known population with a known history of little to no migration. But not for large portions of the world where we have no verifiable information for thousands of years.

Edited August 21, 2012 by Carborendum

[bu11fr0g]

From my perspective, there are three tough DNA problems that directly contradict the theories of some church leaders.

1- the vast majority of the dna from american indians came from eastern asia much earlier than Lehi

2- there was no genetic botttleneck or loss of human populations at the time of a worldwide flood within the last 6000 years.

3- there was no de novo human group within the last 10,000 years that is genetically distinct.

[CASteinman]

I have mentioned this to some people before, but I don't think the point I make comes across very clearly... but I will try again.

The Lemba people of Africa claim to be Jews and analysis shows that they have some rudimentary customs and beliefs of ancient Jews. From all physical appearance these Lemba are strictly Africans -- not Jews, and for many years, despite some cultural aspects, their claim to be Jews was considered spurious and even ridiculous.

But, it turns out -- some of them (about one in four as I recall) have a unique genetic marker that is exclusive (or nearly so) to Kohans. Which strongly suggests that they are Israelites and their claim to be Jews is now considered to be scientifically plausible. (It even appears that they left Israel roughly about the same time Lehi did!)

Now comes my point:

Had there been no Kohan among them, all traces of Jewish or Israelite DNA would seemingly be gone today. Yet despite this disappearance -- they would still be just as "jewish" as they are now understood to be -- it just would not be scientifically verifiable.

The Nephites did not, it seems, have any Kohan among them to leave this marker.

This puts them in exactly the same position as the Lemba -- but without the unique Kohan marker -- and thus no scientific validation of their Israelite roots.

Edited August 21, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

From my perspective, there are three tough DNA problems that directly contradict the theories of some church leaders.

1- the vast majority of the dna from american indians came from eastern asia much earlier than Lehi

2- there was no genetic botttleneck or loss of human populations at the time of a worldwide flood within the last 6000 years.

3- there was no de novo human group within the last 10,000 years that is genetically distinct.

I only think #2 is particularly difficult. But that could be because I don't really understand things.

Edited August 21, 2012 by CASteinman

[Robert F. Smith]

With all the mixing that has happened in the past 3000 years, especially all the UNRECORDED mixing and migration throughout human history, I'm just not buying this as an accurate science. Perhaps for a largely known population with a known history of little to no migration. But not for large portions of the world where we have no verifiable information for thousands of years.

We have plenty of "verifiable information" from the ancient world consisting of DNA extracted from skeletal remains, and we do it with animals, plants, and humans. This gives us good data on the rate of change in DNA over time (the molecular clock) and enables us to provide good estimates of patterns of migration of humans and other animals. Isolated populations do very little mixing, but where interbreeding has occurred, we can detect it, e.g., the mixing of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon upwards of 30,000 years ago.

[ANACO]

False premise. The NG conclusions do not have to be either or. It is in your limited view that it must be so.

Thank you for your extreme knowledge.

[ANACO]

Yes, and Natl Geog put me on the map in Europe with my haplogroup.

Most of what the Natl Geog DNA migration maps provide is the same as found now in most anthropology textbooks, clearly taking us back to Africa.

Lucy is non-human and much too early to be considered in that grouping.

The Natl Geog test results are straightforward and do not in any way run contrary to reasonable religious beliefs. Of course there are fringe belief systems out there which contradict the Bible, for no good reason that I can understand -- except for failure to master biblical languages and archeology.

Interesting. Thank you. Do you believe personally the Nat. Geo. to be correct about Africa?

[Robert F. Smith]

From my perspective, there are three tough DNA problems that directly contradict the theories of some church leaders.

1- the vast majority of the dna from american indians came from eastern asia much earlier than Lehi

If this is such a tough problem, why doesn't anyone oppose it nowadays? Certainly Archbishop Ussher might oppose it today based on his faulty biblical chronology. Is he one of the "church leaders" you had in mind?

2- there was no genetic botttleneck or loss of human populations at the time of a worldwide flood within the last 6000 years.

Once again, why is this considered a "tough DNA problem"? And for whom? Perchance you are attacking the faulty evangelical position? To assume a worldwide instead of a regional flood and recent creation is indeed a popular view in the evangelical community, but I know of no reason to support them.

3- there was no de novo human group within the last 10,000 years that is genetically distinct.

Again, presumably based on faulty evangelical assumptions of recent creation. See http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=40&chapid=162 .

[ERayR]

Thank you for your extreme knowledge.

Your welcome all you have to do is ask. On second thought i'll just volunteer if I see a need. Thank you anyway.

[Robert F. Smith]

Interesting. Thank you. Do you believe personally the Nat. Geo. to be correct about Africa?

Yes, of course. It is not, however, Natl Geog which is correct. It is rather the work of the geneticists about whom they report.

As for the ultimate truth on human origins, I think that the Great Plains of North America is Eden, and that the Garden planted on the east edge of the Eden is at Adam-ondi-Ahman in western Missouri.

[Mehrdad]

Lehi was of the tribe of Manasseh. Remember that Joseph's wife was an Egyptian. There is no telling what his DNA would look like. There is no telling what the DNA of any of the other nine northern tribes would have looked like in 600 B.C. There is too much that we don't know.

Glenn

Lately after doing further research I find it plausible but not definte that the servants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their decendants were adopted into the house of Israel, and these genetic pool could have been drawn from the Semites that lived in the land of Canaan thus inflating the numbers of the Israelites into a numerous multitude. Also any daughters they may have had that married outside and their husbands covenanted with the lord could have been adopted into the house of Israel.

I for one am a strong proponent of Y-DNA testing, because I believe that R1 is Jacobs Y-DNA. Why I say this, is because R1 is found in the middle east and all over the world, including the American Indians of the great lakes have this Y-DNA in large numbers. R1 is also found in small numbers among the Polynesian peoples, but only in New Zealand and the Cook Islands. The New Zealand Maori's are the only ones of the Polynesian people that have a legend that would date back to Christ and the Americas.

Now, finally I considered the story about the Prophet Joseph Smith in the BOM, which said he is a direct decendant of Joseph who was sold into Egypt, now what is the Prophets Y-DNA? Its R1, but this can be debated again, if we take the Orthodox version of a Jew, and it could be his mother, but I haven't seen any studies dating this practice to 600 bc when Lehi left Jerusalem.

Like I say, this is a theory I am working on, today, the Jew's Y DNA are heavily Semitic with J and E being the dominant, R1 is approx 10% of the pool.

[hagoth7]

I for one am a strong proponent of Y-DNA testing, because I believe that R1 is Jacobs Y-DNA. Why I say this, is because R1 is found in the middle east and all over the world...

Including northern Europe

[Mehrdad]

Including northern Europe

Right, and now if only someone would start testing STR's we would start to get a clearer version of whether these R1's found in North America and the Polynesian islands are recent or ancient. Also SNPs would be a good indication of mutation that has occurred overtime if the STR tests do prove ancient lineage. Edited August 31, 2012 by Mehrdad