Jump to content

How Conclusive Is Dna Evidence?


PhysicsDude

Recommended Posts

I know this topic has been brought up a million times, but Mormons always knock off DNA evidence as inconclusive, although this is just something FARMS more or less made up. DNA evidence is much more conclusive than Mormons will admit.

It has been proven reliably that Mitochondrial is an accurate method of tracing genealogy, but let me explain. Its %100 accurate in one area, but not completely accurate in another area. Mitochondrial DNA does not change generation to generation, it is passed unchanged by the mother to both daughters and sons. The ONLY time it is changed is when a mutation occurs, which is very very rare. This goes on to say that when if 2 people share mitochondrial DNA, they MUST be related, theres no other way. But if 2 people don't share mitochondrial DNA, they are possibly related, but its not conclusive that they aren't related.

Now, scientists (both Mormon scientists, and non-mormon NON-PARTIAL scientists) have tested thousands of native Americans, all over North and South America, from hundreds of secluded and remote tribes. It was found that 99.4 of native Americans HAD east-Asian Mitochondrial DNA, and .6 of them had European (not Israelite) DNA. This is conclusive! It means that the Native Americans CAME from east-Asia, its %100 accurate about it. Now what is interesting is that scientists also are able to extract DNA from skeletons and hundreds of skeletons, found in America which are believed to be a thousand or more years old (many of which were tested and confirmed by BYU scientists) and they showed to have %100 of east-Asian DNA. The %.6 European DNA from modern Native Americans is obviously from intermarriage from the Europeans. Although scientists try to find the most remote and exclusive Native American tribes, just one or two intermarriages can change the mitochondrial DNA that they have.

So, this is absolutely accurate proof that Indians came from east Asia. Now where is the Israelite DNA? Surely we were able to find that rare %.6 of European DNA but there is no evidence at all, not even a single Native American that has Israelite DNA? Many many Mormon sources explicitly state that modern Native Americans are descendants of Lehi and his group, and Mulek and his group that crosses the ocean.

D&C 19: 27

"it may go to the Jew, of whom the Lamanites are a remnant,"

D&C 28 refers to Native Americans solely as "Lamanites".

Alma 24 (around 97 B.C.) (Talking about the forming of the "Anti-Nephi-Lehies")

" 29 Now, among those who joined the people of the Lord, there were none who were Amalekites or Amulonites, or who were of the order of Nehor, but they were actual descendants of Laman and Lemuel."

I could grab scriptures about this all day, but you get the point.

Now I know what refutes this evidence, is that there were already indigenous people in America that all the Israelites intermarried, and the Israelite DNA was lost. But is this really plausible? Even if there was said intermarriage, NONE of the Israelite DNA survived? Alma clearly says that Lamanites were "actual descendants", which means they were not purely indigenous, but had Laman and Lemuel's blood and therefore DNA. There was evidence of European DNA is believed-to-be pure Native Americans, but for Lamanites, which the scriptures say are actual descendants, which means they must be pure Israelite, or at one time very intermarried with Israelite blood, and we can't even find one single piece of Israelite DNA ANYWHERE in the America's? How is this possible? Could someone explain a scenario in which this is possible?

Link to comment

Hmm...no responses yet.

It may be because the defenders of the Book of Mormon are just not in the mood to argue (they've heard it all before and YOU aren't going to change their mind, lol).

Likewise, maybe those who agree with what you say feel like you are just preachin' to the choir.

Anyone out there want to talk?

As for myself, I agree that the DNA evidence puts the BoM in a whole new light. The BoM that I grew up believing in does not mesh well with the DNA results. Thats for sure.

Link to comment

Obviously The Dude will probably speak up about this, and I'm only as knowledgeable as my understanding of the past threads, not being trained in the science. My understanding is that you can't get away with saying that the Israelite DNA isn't there, because we can't say for sure what ancient Israelite DNA actually is. However, and this is I believe The Dude's point, what we can say for sure is that the Amerinds have the East Asian (Siberian?) DNA that we can identify. In other words, the denial of Israelite DNA is not direct, but implied by the confirmation of something else.

Am I close? Come on, my time on this board can't have been totally in vain!

Link to comment

Now I know what refutes this evidence, is that there were already indigenous people in America that all the Israelites intermarried, and the Israelite DNA was lost. But is this really plausible? Even if there was said intermarriage, NONE of the Israelite DNA survived?

It's totally plausible. You just have to believe that the Lamanites and Nephites started intermarrying with natives as soon as they arrived.

Alma clearly says that Lamanites were "actual descendants", which means they were not purely indigenous, but had Laman and Lemuel's blood and therefore DNA.

Oh, you mean is it plausible with the scenario given in the BoM? Well, that's that depends....

I pretty much agree with you that DNA evidence is conclusive to a point, and anyone who says it isn't is shifting attention away from the real question. That question, the thing that isn't conclusive, is the meaning of the scenario set by the BoM.

It's a question for LDS believers and questioners to ask themselves. Scientists don't have much to do with it at this point.

Link to comment

In other words, the denial of Israelite DNA is not direct, but implied by the confirmation of something else.

That's right, Sethbag. It's good to see someone has got it.

I think untrained critics have overstated this point, leading to all sorts of needless ink from both sides about what Israelite DNA would look like. Hey, the point at this date is that we know it wouldn't look like south Siberian DNA, and that's what we've got.

Link to comment

Physicsdude did not mention sampling error. Obviously, all the "Indians" in North and South America have not been tested. Only a random sample. For those not well versed in scientific method, random samples usually provide accurate data. But a random sample is, by definition, a sample of the population where every individual has an equal opportunity to be included. In a large population, this ideal is never reached. The results of scientific studies are never stated in absolute 100%. They may reach statistical significance with probabilities in the .90's.

But honest scientists never claim 100% assurance.

Link to comment

The Dude,

Do you know if the European haplogroup closely resembles that of people native to France? The reason I ask is I watched a special last night on Clovis points (and similar Stone Age technology) which have been found throughout the world (namely the Americas), and one of the places the technology has been found is in France. I know that the European group is way too old to be of significance in BoM studies, but Iâ??m curious if they have been able to pinpoint the origin of the European haplogroup (i.e. a region more specific than just "Europe")?

Thanks,

Stu

Physicsdude did not mention sampling error. Obviously, all the "Indians" in North and South America have not been tested. Only a random sample. For those not well versed in scientific method, random samples usually provide accurate data. But a random sample is, by definition, a sample of the population where every individual has an equal opportunity to be included. In a large population, this ideal is never reached. The results of scientific studies are never stated in absolute 100%. They may reach statistical significance with probabilities in the .90's.

But honest scientists never claim 100% assurance.

Not only is there the problem with only taking random samples. There is also the problem brought about by the atrocities that Native Americans have suffered. Many tribes are extinct.

Link to comment

I know this topic has been brought up a million times, but Mormons always knock off DNA evidence as inconclusive, although this is just something FARMS more or less made up.

References, please.

DNA evidence is much more conclusive than Mormons will admit.

No, it's not. Even Simon Southerton - no friend to the Mormons - disagrees with you.

In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites, say less than thirty, entered such a massive native population, it would be very hard to detect their genes today.

It has been proven reliably that Mitochondrial is an accurate method of tracing genealogy,

No, it hasn't. Mitochondrial DNA cannot be used to account for one's geneology with "100% accuracy." The information simply isn't all there. Nobody carries a genetic signature for each and every one of their genetic ancestors.

but let me explain.

We've been here. Done this. Got the t-shirt. If you have something new to say, then say it. Otherwise, why re-hash what has been said in numerous previous threads (all of which are readily available using this board's search feature)?

Now, scientists (both Mormon scientists, and non-mormon NON-PARTIAL scientists) have tested thousands of native Americans, all over North and South America, from hundreds of secluded and remote tribes. It was found that 99.4 of native Americans HAD east-Asian Mitochondrial DNA, and .6 of them had European (not Israelite) DNA. This is conclusive!

No, it's not!

It means that the Native Americans CAME from east-Asia, its %100 accurate about it.

It does not preclude the possibility of small groups that came from other areas.

Now what is interesting is that scientists also are able to extract DNA from skeletons and hundreds of skeletons, found in America which are believed to be a thousand or more years old (many of which were tested and confirmed by BYU scientists) and they showed to have %100 of east-Asian DNA.

Call for references. What scientists did this? Where are their published findings? Which BYU scientists "tested and confirmed" the other scientists' findings? Where are their finding?

So, this is absolutely accurate proof that Indians came from east Asia.

Nobody has contested this. But is there "absolutely accurate proof" that they came solely from East Asia?

Nope.

Now where is the Israelite DNA? Surely we were able to find that rare %.6 of European DNA but there is no evidence at all, not even a single Native American that has Israelite DNA?

Evidence, please, that "not even a single Native American that has Israelite DNA."

Now I know what refutes this evidence, is that there were already indigenous people in America that all the Israelites intermarried, and the Israelite DNA was lost.

So all the previous assertions about "conclusive" evidence, "absolutely accurate proof" were not made in good faith, I take it?

But is this really plausible?

Simon Southerton thinks so. So do several geneticists who have published extensively on this very subject.

Are you even aware that these resources exist?

Even if there was said intermarriage, NONE of the Israelite DNA survived?

Got it. You are not familiar with the subject matter.

I'm not sure you'll get much attention here. This issue has been debated extensively here. FARMS and FAIR have published extensively on the subject, and you apparently have no clue that these resources exist. Most of the people who have something informative and interesting to say about this issue are not going to want to talk to you until you gain some minimal familiarity with the subject matter.

Bald assertions won't do. Vague references to unidentified "scientists" and "evidence" won't do. Re-inventing the proverbial wheel by re-hashing stuff we've discussed many times over won't do (particularly when you haven't even bothered to educate yourself about the subject).

Alma clearly says that Lamanites were "actual descendants", which means they were not purely indigenous, but had Laman and Lemuel's blood and therefore DNA.

Amazing how quickly you concede the irrelevance of the DNA arguments you cited in your previous thread. The issue, really, is not about DNA. It's about textual interpretation of the Book of Mormon.

There was evidence of European DNA is believed-to-be pure Native Americans, but for Lamanites, which the scriptures say are actual descendants, which means they must be pure Israelite, or at one time very intermarried with Israelite blood, and we can't even find one single piece of Israelite DNA ANYWHERE in the America's? How is this possible? Could someone explain a scenario in which this is possible?

Before we discuss possibilities, let's discuss the viability of your premise (about what the Book of Mormon text "must" mean in terms of genetics).

Better yet, before we discuss the viability of your premise, let's put this thread on hold until you educate yourself a bit about the subject matter.

-Smac

Link to comment

Physicsdude did not mention sampling error. Obviously, all the "Indians" in North and South America have not been tested. Only a random sample. For those not well versed in scientific method, random samples usually provide accurate data. But a random sample is, by definition, a sample of the population where every individual has an equal opportunity to be included. In a large population, this ideal is never reached. The results of scientific studies are never stated in absolute 100%. They may reach statistical significance with probabilities in the .90's.

But honest scientists never claim 100% assurance.

This seems like a distraction, but I could be wrong.

Charity, please clarify how sampling error is relevant to the conclusions being drawn from DNA surveys and how they relate to the BoM. What alternative pattern could be hidden in the sampling error? How would it allow Native Americans to be related to Israelites instead of south Siberians?

Link to comment
Not only is there the problem with only taking random samples. There is also the problem brought about by the atrocities that Native Americans have suffered. Many tribes are extinct.

Extinct, eh? I don't know why I should get such a chuckle out of this sincere post at this early hour - perhaps I didn't get enough sleep last night because I spent too much time cruising the forum. Be that as it may, there's something really funny to me about the idea of the "missing tribe theory" joining the "missing scroll theory" in the quiver of apologetic explanations for why something in the real world doesn't match up with the claims of the church. Seriously, don't you just smile at the thought of (despite the horror actually entailed by the events referenced) of someone saying hey, maybe the reason we haven't yet found the Lehite DNA is that the tribes who had it got wiped out by the Europeans when they colonized this place?

Our tolerance for mockers has lowered considerably. Keep your chuckling to yourself, Sethbag. = mods

Link to comment

Something I would like to know is what percentage of native americans are still left. Wasn't it like 90% wiped out or some mega number like that?

I would recommend the fairly recently published book, 1491 -- can't remember the author -- for a real eye opener as to just how many natives may have been here before the arrival of European disease.

Link to comment

The Dude,

Do you know if the European haplogroup closely resembles that of people native to France? The reason I ask is I watched a special last night on Clovis points (and similar Stone Age technology) which have been found throughout the world (namely the Americas), and one of the places the technology has been found is in France. I know that the European group is way too old to be of significance in BoM studies, but Iâ??m curious if they have been able to pinpoint the origin of the European haplogroup (i.e. a region more specific than just "Europe")?

I'm not aware of haplogroup X being specifically linked to people now living in France.

I saw a similar program about Clovis points, but the conclusion was that they probably arose independently in the Americas and were not derived from similar technology in europe. Maybe this is still up in the air?

Link to comment

"Guns, Germs, and Steel" went into it as well. It really was a tragedy of proportions defying any kind of words or description we might offer. Truly horrifying.

I wouldn't pin my hopes of BoM DNA vindication on the "missing tribe theory" though.

Link to comment

Extinct, eh? I don't know why I should get such a chuckle out of this sincere post at this early hour - perhaps I didn't get enough sleep last night because I spent too much time cruising the forum.

Iâ??m glad I could start your day out with a smile. Usually I actually have to put some effort into brightening someoneâ??s day.

Be that as it may, there's something really funny to me about the idea of the "missing tribe theory" joining the "missing scroll theory" in the quiver of apologetic explanations for why something in the real world doesn't match up with the claims of the church.

I try to keep as many weapons in my arsenal as possible. If that requires acknowledging that maybe, just maybe there was a Native American tribe that no longer exists (either through the early Spanish, or the later colonizing "Americansâ?), then so be it.

Seriously, don't you just smile at the thought of (despite the horror actually entailed by the events referenced) of someone saying hey, maybe the reason we haven't yet found the Lehite DNA yet is that the tribes who had it got wiped out by the Europeans when they colonized this place?

Does it make me smile? Not one bit, actually it makes me nauseous. Not only was there the atrocity, there is also the fact that we will never know. Speculation is fun, but only to a point, then it just starts to frustrate my limited intellect.

Link to comment

I know this topic has been brought up a million times, but Mormons always knock off DNA evidence as inconclusive, although this is just something FARMS more or less made up. DNA evidence is much more conclusive than Mormons will admit.

Mormons do not always knock off DNA evidence as inconclusive, so you start with a straw man argument. Many Mormons, since long before we knew anything about DNA, have insisted that Lehi and family were mostly Asian, surprised at having some Israelite ancestry.

Now, what do you have to say since the same people who used DNA evidence to 'prove' that the Lamanites are Asian also say that we are all descended from a single man who lived approximately 15,000 year ago?

Link to comment

"Guns, Germs, and Steel" went into it as well. It really was a tragedy of proportions defying any kind of words or description we might offer. Truly horrifying.

I wouldn't pin my hopes of BoM DNA vindication on the "missing tribe theory" though.

AFAIK, nobody is pinning any hopes on "BoM DNA vindication." To the contrary, the position taken by LDS folks-in-the-know is that DNA is pretty much irrelevant to the Book of Mormon.

-Smac

Link to comment

I try to keep as many weapons in my arsenal as possible. If that requires acknowledging that maybe, just maybe there was a Native American tribe that no longer exists (either through the early Spanish, or the later colonizing "Americansâ?), then so be it.

But what would a missing tribe tell us? At best, it could give a suggestion that a limited population of non-Siberians came and survived as a distinct group. If you hope against hope, it could be linked to ancient Israelites (LDS apolgists insist this is scientifically impossible, and they're probably right). But it would never salvage the notion that current DNA evidence conclusively demolishes: that the Native Americans, as a whole, are principally blood descendants of father Lehi. That idea is forever dead.

My question to charity relates to this. What alternative conclusion could be hidden in sampling error? None that I see as relevant.

So what's the point? Again, it's just a distraction unless you can show how it is relevant.

Link to comment

But what would a missing tribe tell us? At best, it could give a suggestion that a limited population of non-Siberians came and survived as a distinct group. If you hope against hope, it could be linked to ancient Israelites (LDS apolgists insist this is scientifically impossible, and they're probably right). But it would never salvage the notion that current DNA evidence conclusively demolishes: that the Native Americans, as a whole, are principally blood descendants of father Lehi. That idea is forever dead.

My question to charity relates to this. What alternative conclusion could be hidden in sampling error? None that I see as relevant.

So what's the point? Again, it's just a distraction unless you can show how it is relevant.

I think Iâ??m getting what youâ??re saying (and Sethbagâ??s comment as well). Perhaps this is one â??weaponâ? I should bury ala Anit-Nephi-Lehi style. I guess Iâ??ve still got some of View of the Hebrews hope in my veins that there were some tribes that not only had the Israelite-ish customs, and language, but also had managed to cling to some of that good ole DNA.

Link to comment

This seems like a distraction, but I could be wrong.

Charity, please clarify how sampling error is relevant to the conclusions being drawn from DNA surveys and how they relate to the BoM. What alternative pattern could be hidden in the sampling error? How would it allow Native Americans to be related to Israelites instead of south Siberians?

I am objecting to the overstatement by physics dude. To state that anything is 100%, as phyicsdude has, you have to test every member of the population, not just a sample.

And the random sample has to refer to the population the sample is taken from. A random sample of today's "Indians" is not a random sample of the population of the North and South American continent in 400 a.d.

Link to comment

Well, I am still rather a simpleton when it comes to all this. And I make no excuses for it. And I am still trying to figure out how the book of mormon became the book of mormon if the book of mormon story is not true.

This is one of the greatest puzzles the world has seen, regardless if the world knows it or not. I just can't figure it out. But I do know that I have this book in front of me gazing up at me...and I see words in the pages but for the life of me, trying to figure out just how the words got there and to prove it...seems an impossible task.

And that is a tough one to get the head around. :P

And so, should I put my faith in science on this one? I don't think so. It is too early in the ballgame for that. But this book is certainly still staring up at me...if only a book could talk. <_<

Link to comment

My question to charity relates to this. What alternative conclusion could be hidden in sampling error? None that I see as relevant.

So what's the point? Again, it's just a distraction unless you can show how it is relevant.

So, if charity can't/doesn't articulate an implication of sampling error (that is to your "satisfaction") does that mean that sampling error is irrelevant to the discussion? Another one of those irrelevant points that you cast aside because it doesn't meet your so-called bias-free standard? In other words, if she doesn't show it to be relevant, somehow it isn't relevant. Riiiiggghhht.

Maybe some of the resistance you are getting these days is because more and more people are seeing through your facade. Unfortunately, for you, you don't seem to be having the same breakthrough, as the resistance to you has nothing to do with you, remember?

Sounds like you are playing a game here and keeping points. I get this feeling about you from time to time. And some of us have long memories for people/behavior like you/yours.

Do not make personal slams on this board. ~ Mods

Link to comment

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...