New Science Impacts Book of Mormon DNA Studies - Southerton is at it again!

[cdowis]

By

[ERayR]

No Ariarates. They don't know what Lehi's DNA looked like, they don't know what Hebrew DNA 2600 years ago looked like, and really there isn't such a thing as "Hebrew" DNA. But that's not the point.

Bananas aren't the point. It's the apples.

Hebrew DNA isn't the point. It's the Native American DNA.

Is anyone saying that any bit of Native American DNA, be it YcDNA, mtDNA, or an autosomal SNP, is a candidate for Lehi's DNA? Or are they saying all these markers came from Asia around the time of the last ice age? As far as I know, the only apologist who thinks any of this is a candidate is Meldrum, who claims haplotype X (a type of mtDNA) came from the Middle East during Book of Mormon times, but he's peddling pseudoscience for money, so lets not worry about that quack. Everybody else agrees the Native American DNA we've surveyed so far couldn't have come from to America as recently as 600 BC. So you don't have to know Lehi's DNA to conclude something about what's been surveyed so far. Agreed?

And you don't have to know exactly what a banana is as long as you are confident in your apples. That's all I meant to say about the fruit (it was supposed to be a logical demonstration, not an analogy).

In your analogy Bananas is the point the analogy should not have been bananas and apples but rather apples and apples. Like you have a basket of apple of which some are Red Delicious, some are Johnathons and some are Granny Smith apples. At first glance they are all apples. To distinguish you must examine more closely. Now if nobody knew what a Granny Smith was then who could identify it from the other apples?

[Ariarates]

You made the demand, so let's get with it.

Mmm, I don't understand how you managed to turn the tables like that. My thesis is that there is no evidence for BoM historicity. I was called on this by several posters, for example for my use of the absolute term "no evidence".

I cannot produce evidence that doesn't exist. Those who claim such evidence exists in abundance should be able to show me just one example. That's all I asked for. That and a minimum standard of proof, i.c. a coherent, sufficiently broad theory, not just some coincidental facts from totally unrelated area's taken completely out of their generally accepted context.

That challenge still stands. Just a single reference from the bulging libraries of New World studies. In any area of your chosing. This ball is not in my park. My claim is that there is NO such evidence. Prove me wrong.

[cdowis]

Mmm, I don't understand how you managed to turn the tables like that.

My thesis is that there is no evidence for BoM historicity. I was called on this by several posters, for example for my use of the absolute term "no evidence".

I called your bluff and you got caught with your pants down.

I cannot produce evidence that doesn't exist. Those who claim such evidence exists in abundance should be able to show me just one example.

This is a phoney argument. I have made no such claim.

That's all I asked for. That and a minimum standard of proof, i.c. a coherent, sufficiently broad theory, not just some coincidental facts from totally unrelated area's taken completely out of their generally accepted context.

That challenge still stands. Just a single reference from the bulging libraries of New World studies. In any area of your chosing. This ball is not in my park. My claim is that there is NO such evidence. Prove me wrong.

I have never made the claim that the BOM can be proven.

YOU made the claim that it is easily disproven. YOU are the one demanding to see universal acceptance from the scientific community.

I made a simple request based on *your* demand, and now you get hysterical.

How pathetic.

[ERayR]

Mmm, I don't understand how you managed to turn the tables like that. My thesis is that there is no evidence for BoM historicity. I was called on this by several posters, for example for my use of the absolute term "no evidence".

I cannot produce evidence that doesn't exist. Those who claim such evidence exists in abundance should be able to show me just one example. That's all I asked for. That and a minimum standard of proof, i.c. a coherent, sufficiently broad theory, not just some coincidental facts from totally unrelated area's taken completely out of their generally accepted context.

That challenge still stands. Just a single reference from the bulging libraries of New World studies. In any area of your chosing. This ball is not in my park. My claim is that there is NO such evidence. Prove me wrong.

First take your fingers out of your ears and open your eyes and shut up with the na na na. After that you may beable to learn something but with your present attitude nobody could show you anything.

I am not trying to be rude but thats they way you are coming accross and I refuse to waste time on futility.

[ERayR]

Mmm, I don't understand how you managed to turn the tables like that. My thesis is that there is no evidence for BoM historicity. I was called on this by several posters, for example for my use of the absolute term "no evidence".

I cannot produce evidence that doesn't exist. Those who claim such evidence exists in abundance should be able to show me just one example. That's all I asked for. That and a minimum standard of proof, i.c. a coherent, sufficiently broad theory, not just some coincidental facts from totally unrelated area's taken completely out of their generally accepted context.

That challenge still stands. Just a single reference from the bulging libraries of New World studies. In any area of your chosing. This ball is not in my park. My claim is that there is NO such evidence. Prove me wrong.

First take your fingers out of your ears and open your eyes and shut up with the na na na. After that you may beable to learn something but with your present attitude nobody could show you anything.

I am not trying to be rude but thats they way you are coming accross and I refuse to waste time on futility.

[Ariarates]

Try tracing the Gepids in European archaeology, biology, etc. - and I would be surprised if you have any success in such an endeavor - even though some of the histories trace them to known locations (something which we don't have w/Nephites in America).

Not sure what your point is. I had never heard of Gepids but a simple Google search taught me the following:

The Gepids (Latin: Gepida; Old English: Gif

[Ariarates]

@cdowis: maybe if you read the entire thread (or at least from the point where I got involved) you could accurately depict what I have been saying. Just use the quote tags and comment on what I actually said (not on what you say I said), then I can reply. In general, it's useful to keep track of who is saying what to whom in order to avoid confusion.

@ERayR: running out of arguments already? Have a nice evening.

[cdowis]

@cdowis: maybe if you read the entire thread (or at least from the point where I got involved) you could accurately depict what I have been saying. Just use the quote tags and comment on what I actually said (not on what you say I said), then I can reply. In general, it's useful to keep track of who is saying what to whom in order to avoid confusion.

Fair enough.

But you consistently argue in this thread that conventional scientists (e.g. nonLDS) have not seriously considered the BOM as authentic history. You use that as a fundamental argument. Nobody has every accepted the BOM story at all.

And I am addressing that point. Scientists simply *ignore* the book delivered by an angel. They are unwilling to read the book, much less conduct serious research. In order to take the BOM seriously, you have to admit the possibility that JS story of gold plates and angels is a possibility.

Ignoring the BOM is the natural reaction to the angel, prophet, gold plates story, because they cannot concede this is feasible. The BOM itself is ignored, does not even get off first base, so to speak.

So, your argument that nonLDS scholars do not accept the story of the BOM has no merit. They are unwilling to admit the possibility of angels, and cannot get past that to the issue of the book itself. And my proof is the request that I made to you -- just find ONE person who has done the work of serious analysis.

[mfbukowski]

Mmm, I don't understand how you managed to turn the tables like that. My thesis is that there is no evidence for BoM historicity. I was called on this by several posters, for example for my use of the absolute term "no evidence".

I cannot produce evidence that doesn't exist. Those who claim such evidence exists in abundance should be able to show me just one example. That's all I asked for. That and a minimum standard of proof, i.c. a coherent, sufficiently broad theory, not just some coincidental facts from totally unrelated area's taken completely out of their generally accepted context.

That challenge still stands. Just a single reference from the bulging libraries of New World studies. In any area of your chosing. This ball is not in my park. My claim is that there is NO such evidence. Prove me wrong.

Give me a break

Do you really want to discuss the evidence that the bible is the "word of God"? Do you really want to start that now? The evidence for the both is the same- both are not discoverable through science.

Yawn.

Do we really have to do this all again?

[Tarski]

Give me a break

Do you really want to discuss the evidence that the bible is the "word of God"? Do you really want to start that now? The evidence for the both is the same- both are not discoverable through science.

Yawn.

Do we really have to do this all again?

You are shifting goal posts. The question for the Book of Mormon is not just whether it is the word of God ( a boringly flexible and fluffy proposition) but more concretely, it is this: "is it a record of a real people that is even remotely historical?"

Were there Nephites and Lamanites?,

Did korihor exist?

Did Nephi exist?

Did Lehi journey to the Americas from the old world?

Was a city of Zarahemla established?

If not one of these things is true, then the BoM is in a different class than the Bible

The Bible may be historically wrong, but the BoM is "not even wrong".

[Lloyd Dobler]

No Ariarates. They don't know what Lehi's DNA looked like, they don't know what Hebrew DNA 2600 years ago looked like, and really there isn't such a thing as "Hebrew" DNA. But that's not the point.

Bananas aren't the point. It's the apples.

Hebrew DNA isn't the point. It's the Native American DNA.

Is anyone saying that any bit of Native American DNA, be it YcDNA, mtDNA, or an autosomal SNP, is a candidate for Lehi's DNA? Or are they saying all these markers came from Asia around the time of the last ice age? As far as I know, the only apologist who thinks any of this is a candidate is Meldrum, who claims haplotype X (a type of mtDNA) came from the Middle East during Book of Mormon times, but he's peddling pseudoscience for money, so lets not worry about that quack. Everybody else agrees the Native American DNA we've surveyed so far couldn't have come from to America as recently as 600 BC. So you don't have to know Lehi's DNA to conclude something about what's been surveyed so far. Agreed?

And you don't have to know exactly what a banana is as long as you are confident in your apples. That's all I meant to say about the fruit (it was supposed to be a logical demonstration, not an analogy).

How many times and in how many ways are you guys going to ask bunk to jump through the same hoop? Good grief. He has made a solid and simple point. If (and it is a big if) this thing plays out and thousands of people are tested up and down south and central america and there are no candidates for Lehi's DNA, then it will eventually become significant enough of an issue for apologists to address. Simply saying Lehi and Co. came over and intermingled with an already existing population may not be a tenable position anymore.

[Ariarates]

But you consistently argue in this thread that conventional scientists (e.g. nonLDS) have not seriously considered the BOM as authentic history. You use that as a fundamental argument. Nobody has ever accepted the BOM story at all.

And I am addressing that point. Scientists simply *ignore* the book delivered by an angel. They are unwilling to read the book, much less conduct serious research. In order to take the BOM seriously, you have to admit the possibility that JS story of gold plates and angels is a possibility.

I have tried to argue that for the BoM to be literal history, it should fit in with what we know about the New World. I qualified "what we know" as the current body of scientific knowledge about the history of the Americas. I have not said that the BoM is not historical because secular scientists "ignore" the BoM. I have said that it is not historical because it doesn't fit in with what these scientists have found out about the history of the Americas.

As for "ignoring", I think it's a matter of plausibility and likelihood. The likelihood of the BoM being literal history is very low because it contradicts everything we do know about the New World. The stoy of the angel and the gold plates probably doesn't help, but it's not required for scientists to legitimately dismiss the BoM as a historical document.

[ERayR]

How many times and in how many ways are you guys going to ask bunk to jump through the same hoop? Good grief. He has made a solid and simple point. If (and it is a big if) this thing plays out and thousands of people are tested up and down south and central america and there are no candidates for Lehi's DNA, then it will eventually become significant enough of an issue for apologists to address. Simply saying Lehi and Co. came over and intermingled with an already existing population may not be a tenable position anymore.

The question you and Bunk both ignore is What Does Lehi's DNA Look Like?

[Nathair/|\]

You are shifting goal posts. The question for the Book of Mormon is not just whether it is the word of God ( a boringly flexible and fluffy proposition) but more concretely, it is this: "is it a record of a real people that is even remotely historical?"

Were there Nephites and Lamanites?, Yes

Did korihor exist?Yes

Did Nephi exist? Yes

Did Lehi journey to the Americas from the old world? Yes

Was a city of Zarahemla established? Yes

If not one of these things is true, then the BoM is in a different class than the Bible

The Bible may be historically wrong, but the BoM is "not even wrong".

The evidence suggests that there are far greater problems if the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be than if it is.

Yours under the factual oaks

Nathair /|\

[cdowis]

Ariarates,

Thanks for sharing with us your personal opinion.

[Bunk]

The question you and Bunk both ignore is What Does Lehi's DNA Look Like?

ERayR, please read and comprehend what I said in post #124.

No Ariarates. They don't know what Lehi's DNA looked like, they don't know what Hebrew DNA 2600 years ago looked like, and really there isn't such a thing as "Hebrew" DNA. But that's not the point....

Read the whole post. It's the very post Lloyd quoted and you responded to. But you have to comprehend or else you will keep foolishly saying I ignore "What Lehi's DNA looked like".

Thanks Lloyd.

[Bunk]

I don't know why we need gratuitously to question Meldrum's motives here. For all any of us know he honestly believes in the Hemispheric theory for Lehite population distribution.

Point taken. Apparently I've let some of this board's anti-Meldrum polemics (expressed by some people) seep into my own words.

It is, moreover, not necessary to conflate the "X" with the Meldrum geography theory. They are not inextricably bound to one another, and each may rise or fall on its own merits.

I think Meldrum's reputation as a theorizer falls with his gross misapplication of the X-haplotype to his theory. There may be other reasons for him to fail. There may be other reasons why the theory has merits, for example, apparent support from early Mormons including Joseph Smith.

[USU78]

There may be other reasons why the theory has merits, for example, apparent support from early Mormons including Joseph Smith.

Early on, certainly. Later in life, it appears JSJr considered other options.

[mfbukowski]

You are shifting goal posts. The question for the Book of Mormon is not just whether it is the word of God ( a boringly flexible and fluffy proposition) but more concretely, it is this: "is it a record of a real people that is even remotely historical?"

Were there Nephites and Lamanites?,

Did korihor exist?

Did Nephi exist?

Did Lehi journey to the Americas from the old world?

Was a city of Zarahemla established?

If not one of these things is true, then the BoM is in a different class than the Bible

The Bible may be historically wrong, but the BoM is "not even wrong".

Uh huh.

Did Jonah exist and was he swallowed by a whale and spit out perfectly fine 3 days later?

Did God create the earth in 6 days?

Did a donkey speak?

Was Moses a historical person? Did he part the sea? What did they eat for 40 years?

Was Jesus even a historical parson?

I suppose since there really was a city called "Jericho", for example (was there?) then all these other things happened too, right? Wow that's great evidence, perfectly logical.

Because there are named sites which we know exist, a donkey talked. I like that logic.

Now what was it you were saying?

[mfbukowski]

How many times and in how many ways are you guys going to ask bunk to jump through the same hoop? Good grief. He has made a solid and simple point. If (and it is a big if) this thing plays out and thousands of people are tested up and down south and central america and there are no candidates for Lehi's DNA, then it will eventually become significant enough of an issue for apologists to address. Simply saying Lehi and Co. came over and intermingled with an already existing population may not be a tenable position anymore.

Did you even read the rest of the thread?

That has already been discussed and re-discussed. There is no issue. The BOM alludes to the mixture in Jacob, and Moroni says the Nephites were exterminated. There is no need for further apologetics than that. It is a possibility that the Lehite line died out completely, even if we know what to look for, which we don't, but with the state of DNA testing discussed here, that has not been shown.

[mfbukowski]

The evidence suggests that there are far greater problems if the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be than if it is not.

Yours under the factual oaks

Nathair /|\

The BOM states that the Nephites were exterminated. One could argue that if the book is true, there would be no genetic evidence to be found, and that the DNA studies have been barking up the wrong tree from the beginning.

[Bunk]

Did you even read the rest of the thread?

That has already been discussed and re-discussed. There is no issue. The BOM alludes to the mixture in Jacob, and Moroni says the Nephites were exterminated. There is no need for further apologetics than that. It is a possibility that the Lehite line died out completely, even if we know what to look for, which we don't, but with the state of DNA testing discussed here, that has not been shown.

Hold on, there. I think Lloyd's remark addresses the generally held LDS view that many thousands of Lamanites survived the holocaust of ~400AD and carried on portions of Lehi's literal lineage into modern Native Americans. This view is based on Lehi's promise to his sons in 2Nephi13:30-31. Your theory that Lehi's lineage died out completely, even among the so-called Lamanites, is speculative and new, and is not the usual argument put forward by LDS scientist-apologists (i.e. Perego, Woodward, et al.). Your personal notion is note-worthy but it isn't the sum of the thread.

I hope my praise of your forward-thinking hasn't gone to your head.

[mfbukowski]

The more I think about the references in the BOM about the "seed" continuing, the less I am inclined to take them as literal.

We have no precedent as far as I can see for the Lord preferring actual genetic inheritance for a people to be "his people" over those who obey and devote themselves to him. To the contrary, we see repeatedly how those who had the "birthright" who were unrighteous lost that right and it was given to others who were worthy, regardless of inheritance.

When the Jews rejected him in the meridian of time, the gospel was taken to the gentiles- those whom, presumably, had no direct inheritance from Abraham. We are adopted into the family of Abraham if we are not of his descent when we are baptized- that is doctrine, and we are also adopted into Christ's family when we "take his name upon us" in baptism. Adoption is repeatedly seen as completely "valid" to the Lord when one desires to become one of his people.

Even in the case of succession in the church, when some asserted that the line of authority should pass from father to son, that idea was rejected.

I feel that I am just as much of the "seed" of Lehi as I am of Abraham, and I personally believe that I have none of either's DNA, and that is what is meant by the prophecies that the "seed" would continue forever. I am convinced that actual DNA lineage is unimportant to the Lord, otherwise he would be a "respecter of persons". It doesn't matter who your father was, it matters who YOU are.

[mfbukowski]

I hope my praise of your forward-thinking hasn't gone to your head.

Not much chance of that.

In fact, you probably can't tell, but I wrote the above before I read your post- and I have never taken the Nephite inheritance literally

Edit: But it is nice you are sticking up for your new buddy- loyalty is a pretty rare commodity around here.

Edit 2: And it could be argued that the "generally held view" is not consistent with what the BOM actually says. In fact, we found many instances of the standard works trumping "generally held views" repeatedly in Mormon doctrine.