Genetics And The Book Of Mormon

[Robert F. Smith]

In light of Ugo Perego’s paper on “Misquoting Science” at http://www.mormondia...uoting-science/ , I present here my RFSmith notes on Ugo A. Perego, “Book of Mormon Genetics: A Reappraisal,” paper presented Aug 2, 2012, at annual FAIR Conference in Sandy, Utah.

See Perego, “"The Book of Mormon and the Origin of Native Americans from a Maternally Inherited DNA Standpoint" in R. Millet, ed., No Weapon Shall Prosper: New Light on Sensitive Issues (Deseret Book, 2011); available online at http://www.fairlds.o...-dna-standpoint , or http://maxwellinstit...22&num=1&id=796 .

Zegura, Stephen L., et al., “High Resolution SNPs and Microsatellite Hapolotypes Point to a Single Entry of Native American Y Chromosomes into the Americas,” Molecular Biological Evolution, 21/1 (Jan 2004), 164-175. Points to C Q R haplogroups (hg) “most likely” coming over at 20,000 - 15,000 years BP.

Reich, D., et al., “Reconstructing Native American Population History,” Nature, (July 11, 2012), online at http://www.nature.co...ature11258.html . Molecular clock.

Wade, Nicholas, “Earliest Americans Arrived in Waves, DNA Study Finds,” New York Times, July 7, 2012, online at http://www.nytimes.c...tudy-finds.html .

See Michael H. Crawford, The Origins of the Native Americans: Evidence from Anthropological Genetics (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998). Using genetic markers and cultural indicators, argues (3) that Amerinds originated in Asia (Siberia); notes also the 1492 population reduction and genetic bottleneck.

Shook, Beth Alison Schultz, and David Glenn Smith, “Using Ancient mtDNA to Reconstruct the Population History of Northeastern North America,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 137/1 (Sept 2008):14-29.

autosomal DNA (nuclear DNA) very important now.

What are the chances of finding Israelite-Lehite DNA in the Americas? There is no Viking DNA in the New World (Northeastern North America), even though we know via archeology and ethnohistory that they traded with the Amerinds and had villages in America for about 400 years. How could that be?

Genomic research

genetic drift and bottleneck are very important and cannot be disregarded.

Haplogroup Q in Americas might have come from Middle East:

Q1a3a1 (M3) Amerinds

Q1a3b (M323) Yemenite Jews

mtDNA hg in 1990s had low resolution

ABCD _ Americas

X Americas

but it is now clear that the haplogroups in Asia are different. There are four major groups:

A₂, B₂, C₁, D₁

X_2a is nested closer to Old World groups

Green, R. E., et al., “A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome,” Science, 328/5979 (May 7, 2010), 710-722. http://www.sciencemag.org .

Ugo Perego is hg C (Asian, possibly via the Huns who sacked Rome)

Yet his nuclear (autosomal) DNA is fully European, 100%

How can that be?

See videos and podcasts on http://www.JosephsmithDNA.com .

hg C₁ in Iceland (mtDNA)

C_1a in Asia

C_1b in Americas

How can this be?

hg X has a world distribution (America, Europe, and Middle East)

including Iran, NE America, and Egyptian Bedouin

Conclusions:

1. We don’t know Lehi’s DNA

2. Scientists still studying Amerind DNA

3. No adequate testable research hypothesis yet

4. Many migrations, with scientific focus on first one

5. DNA does not disappear over time

6. There is Amerind DNA related to Old World DNA

7. Population genetics has rules – obey them

8. Beware of premature final answers

Edited August 18, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[happy]

Wasn't Lehi not an actual Jew? Someone told me he was not from the right house.

[Glenn101]

Wasn't Lehi not an actual Jew? Someone told me he was not from the right house.

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

[Robert F. Smith]

Wasn't Lehi not an actual Jew? Someone told me he was not from the right house.

Right. He was a Manassite (Tribe of Manasseh). Jews are from Judah. However, I suspect Israelite DNA is going to be pretty much the same as Jewish DNA. We could examine the DNA from skeletal remains just to be certain.

[ANACO]

Mulek was of the tribe of Judah. (Helaman 6:10)

Lehi of the tribe of Manasseh. (Alma 10:3)

There were more people of Mulek, than of Lehi. (Mosiah 25:2)

Yet, the seed of Joseph was to be preserved. (2 Nephi 3:3)

[cesc101]

Yet, the seed of Joseph was to be preserved. (2 Nephi 3:3)

Yes, the "seed".

But with all the inter-marriages & adaptation issues since then, I doubt the DNA of his seeds will ever look like his (if it can ever be found).

[ANACO]

Yes, the "seed".

But with all the inter-marriages & adaptation issues since then, I doubt the DNA of his seeds will ever look like his (if it can ever be found).

So you're saying this prophecy can never be known to be fulfilled. It was just made up to fill up space on the gold plates.

What of the descendants of Laman and Lemuel - being of the tribe of Manasseh? They survived. The Book of Mormon was written for them per the title page written by Moroni: "Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel"

And what of 2 Nephi 30:3,4,5 & 6?

[longview]

What about Ishmael? Children of both Lehi and Ishmael inter-married.

[hagoth7]

Yet, the seed of Joseph was to be preserved. (2 Nephi 3:3)

And later in the same chapter Lehi promises that his own son Joseph's seed would specifically be preserved.

[ANACO]

What about Ishmael? Children of both Lehi and Ishmael inter-married.

Ephraim:

The Prophet Joseph informed us that the record of Lehi, was contained on the 116 pages that were first translated and subsequently stolen, and of which an abridgement is given us in the first Book of Nephi, which is the record of Nephi individually, he himself being of the lineage of Manasseh; but that Ishmael was of the lineage of Ephraim, and that his sons married into Lehi's family, and Lehi's sons married Ishmael's daughters, thus fulfilling the words of Jacob upon Ephraim and Manasseh in the 48th chapter of Genesis, which says: “And let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the land.” Thus these descendants of Manasseh and Ephraim grew together upon this American continent, with a sprinkling from the house of Judah, from Mulek descended, who left Jerusalem eleven years after Lehi, and founded the colony afterwards known as Zarahemla and found by Mosiah—thus making a combination, an intermixture of Ephraim and Manasseh with the remnants of Judah; and for aught we know, the remnants of some other tribes that might have accompanied Mulek.

(Journal of Discourses, vol. 23, pp. 184, 185) http://jod.mrm.org/23/181

Genesis 49:26 also mentions the seed of Joseph (of Egypt) unto the "utmost bounds of the everlasting hills."

1 Chronicles 9:3 states:

And in Jerusalem dwelt of the children of Judah, and of the children of Benjamin, and of the children of Ephraim, and Manasseh;

[hagoth7]

Reich, D., et al., “Reconstructing Native American Population History,” Nature, (July 11, 2012),

online at http://nature/journa...ature11258.html . Molecular clock.

FYI, you have a dead link here.

[Robert F. Smith]

FYI, you have a dead link here.

Sorry about that. Here is a good one to the abstract at least: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7411/full/nature11258.html .

[Robert F. Smith]

Mulek was of the tribe of Judah. (Helaman 6:10)

Lehi of the tribe of Manasseh. (Alma 10:3)

There were more people of Mulek, than of Lehi. (Mosiah 25:2)

Yet, the seed of Joseph was to be preserved. (2 Nephi 3:3)

Mulek (son of Zedekiah) and his descendant Zarahemla are the only ones we know of as from Judah. As a prince, we might expect him to have a Judahite retinue, but the ship's crew may have been Phoenician or Egyptian for all we know at this remove. So we don't know the overall composition of the Mulekites when Mosiah I came to rule over them. Only that they no longer spoke Hebrew. Why?

We also don't know from what tribe Zoram came, but being a servant to Laban may mean that he was a Manassite or at least Northern Israelite.

Lehi and his children were of Manasseh, and if Ishmael was of Ephraim, that indicates good overall representation of Joseph.

DNA sampling of skeletal remains from ancient Israel would be helpful in setting out the genetic range we should expect. I suspect that we would find that Judahite DNA and the DNA of other Israelite tribes would be very similar and that a typical MDS plot* would show that. The only oddity to expect is that of kohen modal haplotype for a particular high priestly lineage within the tribe of Levi, simply because they did not so freely intermarry with the other tribes, and because priesthood was determined to pass only from father to son.

* Michael F. Hammer, et al., “Jewish and Middle Eastern Non-Jewish Populations Share a Common Pool of Y-Chromosome Biallelic Haplotypes,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, May 9, 2000. Features MDS plot of populations based on Y-chromosome haplotype data (fig. 2), showing varied Jewish populations (Ashkenazi, Roman, Kurdish, North African, Iraqi, Iranian, and Yemenite) to be virtually indistinguishable from non-Jewish Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese, Druze, and Saudi Arabians. Ethiopian Jews and the Lemba (Bantu/Venda speakers of South Africa) were outside this tight grouping, for whatever reason (perhaps a more discrete sampling needs to be taken -- from the Buba subclan of the Lemba, for example). Online at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10801975 , and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18733/ .

Edited August 18, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[ANACO]

Mulek (son of Zedekiah) and his descendant Zarahemla are the only ones we know of as from Judah. As a prince, we might expect him to have a Judahite retinue, but the ship's crew may have been Phoenician or Egyptian for all we know at this remove. So we don't know the overall composition of the Mulekites when Mosiah I came to rule over them. Only that they no longer spoke Hebrew. Why?

I believe the Book of Mormon indicates that the people of Mulek had no records among them. Omni 1:17

Verse 18 notes they were taught in the language of the Nephites.

The same language was taught to the Lamanites: Mosiah 24:4

The same even happened to the Nephites - to some extent: Mormon 9:33

[cesc101]

So you're saying this prophecy can never be known to be fulfilled. It was just made up to fill up space on the gold plates.

What of the descendants of Laman and Lemuel - being of the tribe of Manasseh? They survived. The Book of Mormon was written for them per the title page written by Moroni: "Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel"

And what of 2 Nephi 30:3,4,5 & 6?

I would say at this point that am missing your point. Or probably we're just talking past each other.

First of all, am no expert in genetics - but i do my best to tag along. Secondly, i do not doubt that the lamanites - and i believe they exist today as the amerindians - are those whom the Book of Mormon was written so as to bring to the knowledge of their redeemer.

I am saying (owing to my research into this sticky-DNA issue) you cannot by scientific DNA study prove the amerindians to be the seeds of Joseph

Edited August 18, 2012 by cesc101

[Robert F. Smith]

I would say at this point that am missing your point. Or probably we're just talking past each other.

First of all, am no expert in genetics - but i do my best to tag along. Secondly, i do not doubt that the lamanites - and i believe they exist today as the amerindians - are those whom the Book of Mormon was written so as to bring to the knowledge of their redeemer.

I am saying (owing to my research into this sticky-DNA issue) you cannot by scientific DNA study prove the amerindians to be the seeds of Joseph

To speak of the Amerinds takes in a lot of territory, an entire hemisphere of very diverse languages and peoples. Are you saying that all Amerinds are Lamanites and that all are the seed of Joseph? Do you mean that to include Polynesians and other Pacific Islanders? Eskimos? And do you mean that in a generic rather than genetic sense?

Would you say also that DNA study cannot prove the Amerinds not to be of the seed of Joseph?

[cesc101]

Now, I wouldn't say that Robert.

I was taught that all humans originated from Africa, DNA cannot prove that - just stories.

No matter how much research we put into it, it'll always boil down to stories, NO concrete prove; because we inter-marry, and new DNA emergies.

[cesc101]

Are you saying that all Amerinds are Lamanites and that all are the seed of Joseph? Do you mean that to include Polynesians and other Pacific Islanders? Eskimos? And do you mean that in a generic rather than genetic sense?

Would you say also that DNA study cannot prove the Amerinds not to be of the seed of Joseph?

Ok... I think i need to rephrase myself here.

I believe the Lamanites still exist today [among] the amerindians... (i hope that clears my stance on this seed of joseph thing?)

[Robert F. Smith]

Now, I wouldn't say that Robert.

I was taught that all humans originated from Africa, DNA cannot prove that - just stories.

No matter how much research we put into it, it'll always boil down to stories, NO concrete prove; because we inter-marry, and new DNA emergies.

Intermarriage has nothing to do with it. Geneticists have a kind of molecular clock which they apply to the changes in DNA through time, showing that all humans came from common human ancestors in Africa -- most likely in the area of the Kalahari, where genetic variation is highest.

[robuchan]

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.

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

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.

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?

[happy]

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.

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

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.

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?

Really? There are still holes in evolution.

[robuchan]

Really? There are still holes in evolution.

Do we have a more complete picture of evolution today than we had 50 years ago? My point is that science is connecting the dots, and eventually the picture will become clear.

[happy]

Do we have a more complete picture of evolution today than we had 50 years ago? My point is that science is connecting the dots, and eventually the picture will become clear.

Until the picture changes again. The problem is you are comparing possibly lost DNA with modern DNA. What if it takes a time machine and a blood sample to get Lehi's DNA?

[happy]

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/what_are_the_to059781.html

FYI.

[robuchan]

Until the picture changes again. The problem is you are comparing possibly lost DNA with modern DNA. What if it takes a time machine and a blood sample to get Lehi's DNA?

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.