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

[Lloyd Dobler]

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.

Exactly. My assumption is that the lineage was carried on through surviving Lamanites into what we would refer to and test as central and south american native americans. These people will be tested in greater and greater numbers as time goes on. It may (all I am saying is may) be that these tests render the current "lehi came over and intermixed with an existing population" rationalization as one without merit just as the preponderance of evidence showing that tons of people lived in north, central and south america for thousands of years has rendered the "land held for Lehi, nobody lived there before him" one that few people defend anymore because science and information has made that position beyond acceptable reason.

I have never heard a church leader propose that all nephites and lamanites died off. Ever. If they did, why would BYU have sponsored that sweet Lamanite Generation dance group all those years? Oh wait, they discontinued that.......and now don't refer to Native Americans as Lamanites anymore, and changed the intro to the book of mormon.....maybe you would want them to change the intro again to match your theory? They may eventually have to....however, i agree with bunk, you guys should be excited by this kind of testing as it is sure to come up with some samplings that can be used as some kind of rationalization to help explain or support the Lehi intermix theory.

[mfbukowski]

Exactly. My assumption is .....

And that tells the tale.

If you had read the thread as I suggested you would have noted that not all "Washingtonians" are descendants of George Washington, all Hungarians are not descendants of the Huns; I can assure you that all members to become part of the family of Christ by taking on his name are his literal descendants either, and neither are all who are pronounced "Ephraimites" in their patriarchal blessings necessarily carriers of his DNA.

I have always said that critics are fundamentalists, and this is just another example. Why do you (as a group) never get symbolism? Symbolism is the root of all religion.

You actually might argue that we could solve the problem of whether or not God exists if we could just make a good enough space probe and NOT find him.

You really should stay out of arguments you cannot possibly understand.

Edit: Please note I am not arguing that all the bloodlines of Lehi did in fact die out- I am just saying that if they did the BOM would be just as true- the existence or non-existence of the DNA is irrelevant.

[cdowis]

Edit: Please note I am not arguing that all the bloodlines of Lehi did in fact die out- I am just saying that if they did the BOM would be just as true- the existence or non-existence of the DNA is irrelevant.

OK, but this comment probably belongs in Social Hall. In this forum, such issues are important.

[cdowis]

The BOM states that the Nephites were exterminated.

Perhaps as a nation, but the BOM tells us that there were survivors who had joined with the Lamanites.

[Lloyd Dobler]

Edit: Please note I am not arguing that all the bloodlines of Lehi did in fact die out- I am just saying that if they did the BOM would be just as true- the existence or non-existence of the DNA is irrelevant.

[mfbukowski]

This may be the part of the thread where bunk comes in and restates his point yet again, which you will yet again ignore. Why don't you just cut to the chase and say what it seems you must mean, -the existence or non-existence of Lehi and Co. is irrelevant as the BOM would be just as true.

That is nowhere close to the argument I am making. The historicity of the BOM has nothing to do with DNA.

[mfbukowski]

OK, but this comment probably belongs in Social Hall. In this forum, such issues are important.

Huh?

[mfbukowski]

Perhaps as a nation, but the BOM tells us that there were survivors who had joined with the Lamanites.

Fine. So because that is true, Lehi's DNA must still be around- is that your position?

And without Lehi's DNA being found, the BOM is false.

Duly noted.

[Nathair/|\]

Regardless of whether Lehi has any living descendants in 2010 (I really don't know, though I lean towards there being some), there are too many known bulls-eyes in the BOM for there to be any reasonable doubt of it's historicity even if Lehite DNA is extinct.

Yours under the evidential oaks,

Nathair /|\

[mfbukowski]

Regardless of whether Lehi has any living descendants in 2010 (I really don't know, though I lean towards there being some), there are too many known bulls-eyes in the BOM for there to be any reasonable doubt of it's historicity even if Lehite DNA is extinct.

Yours under the evidential oaks,

Nathair /|\

That is the point I am trying to make. Thanks for doing it so succinctly.

[Lloyd Dobler]

Fine. So because that is true, Lehi's DNA must still be around- is that your position?

And without Lehi's DNA being found, the BOM is false.

Duly noted.

You accuse me of being a fundamentalist critic and then you make statemnts like these. You are basically putting fundamentalist words in cdowis's mouth. Great strategy. Duly noted.

Nobody on this thread is saying that without Lehi's DNA being found, the BOM is false. What I am saying is that if (and for at least the second time I am saying if) this turns out to be the case then it pushes the current theory of Lehi coming over and intermixing with an existing population to a point where it may not be a credible position to defend. I am not saying it is going to happen. I am not making absolute statements like the one you just made.

What I find facinating is your reaction to bunks point. If anything, you are the one over reacting here. I mean you are the one immediately throwing out some baseless ad hoc total extermination theory. Now that is a theory that sounds desperate, not bunks simple point. But then you put the cherry on top of your theory by doing your best DCP impersonation (DCP is cool, i am actually listening to one of his CDs in my car right now) by saying....................wait for it..................."You actually might argue that we could solve the problem of whether or not God exists if we could just make a good enough space probe and NOT find him."

Very clever statement. With that kinds of sound reasoning I bet you have never lost a debate or an argument. Congrats.

I will admit that I am being sarcastic and I don't even like my own tone. I am sorry for this. It is just incredibly frustrating when people make good points on this board that my not exactly support the church and then get a dismissive run around routine. The last time I participated on this board was regarding the first vision and angels and some dude said I should read a book before I commented any further. Well, it was done in a respectful way and so I bailed on the thread and read the book. I am the better for it and have a better perspective and a more respectful perspective for a specific apologetic position. Good points should be respectfully acknowledged.

[cdowis]

Fine. So because that is true, Lehi's DNA must still be around- is that your position?

And without Lehi's DNA being found, the BOM is false.

Duly noted.

I note that you are putting words into my mouth.

In my comment on sampling error of using modern AmerIndians for DNA samples, I have noted that a large part of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas have gone extinct. My personal opinion is that Lehi's DNA is hanging around somewhere among the Amerindians, but, since we have no description of that DNA, we cannot speak beyond supposition.

I was merely making an observation that some of the Nephites survived the war of extinction... but....shrug.....

[mfbukowski]

I note that you are putting words into my mouth.

In my comment on sampling error of using modern AmerIndians for DNA samples, I have noted that a large part of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas have gone extinct. My personal opinion is that Lehi's DNA is hanging around somewhere among the Amerindians, but, since we have no description of that DNA, we cannot speak beyond supposition.

I was merely making an observation that some of the Nephites survived the war of extinction... but....shrug.....

I apologize. I was carrying your position out to it's logical extreme. I think it's hanging around somewhere in the Native Americans too, but that is beside the point.

The point I was trying to make is that if we are willing to acknowledge that Lehi's line went extinct, the whole sampling error argument becomes irrelevant. I look at the direction of an argument and seek to "cut it off at the pass" before we get to a critical point. I hate wasting breath on arguments which might someday become irrelevant or are already irrelevant, and that is why I am posting less and less here lately.

To me it is like arguing whether 3 angels or 2 angels can sit on the end of a pin, when (suppose)it has already been shown that angels cannot occupy the same space.

But I see your point- many LDS would be happy to actually find Hebrew DNA in the Native Americans- but what they are not thinking about is that would not prove it was Lehi's anyway, and so it would have little relevance for the BOM.

So for me, the sampling error argument is irrelevant to what is important- the truth of the BOM.

I did not mean to be offensive or dismissive and I apologize for that if I made you feel that way.

[mfbukowski]

Nobody on this thread is saying that without Lehi's DNA being found, the BOM is false. What I am saying is that if (and for at least the second time I am saying if) this turns out to be the case then it pushes the current theory of Lehi coming over and intermixing with an existing population to a point where it may not be a credible position to defend.

Uh huh.

And then what? What is the next step? So let's assume that it is not credible to defend that that his DNA was intermixed with the existing population. What is your next argument?

And trust me, Bunk doesn't need your help. And if you don't like your tone, change it.

These are important issues to me. I'm not playing here.

[Lloyd Dobler]

Uh huh.

And then what? What is the next step? So let's assume that it is not credible to defend that that his DNA was intermixed with the existing population. What is your next argument?

And trust me, Bunk doesn't need your help. And if you don't like your tone, change it.

These are important issues to me. I'm not playing here.

My tone for you is definetly appropriate.

I love how this goes for you. Your position is to simply maintain a position that requires no defense because it is based on you commiting to nothing. Here is what you said to cdowis "The point I was trying to make is that if we are willing to acknowledge that Lehi's line went extinct, the whole sampling error argument becomes irrelevant" Then you say this " Please note I am not arguing that all the bloodlines of Lehi did in fact die out- I am just saying that if they did the BOM would be just as true- the existence or non-existence of the DNA is irrelevant" Then you say this "many LDS would be happy to actually find Hebrew DNA in the Native Americans- but what they are not thinking about is that would not prove it was Lehi's anyway"

So based on your two statements we can conclude the following:

1. If Lehi's line went extinct, the DNA argument is irrelevant.

2. If Lehi's line did not go extinct, the DNA argument is irrelevant.

This is a master stroke on your part. If DNA is so irrelevant to the BOM, then why did the Church bother to change the intro to the BOM? Simply because they decided now was the time to de-correlate McConkie? You want to dismiss out of hand an advancing type of science being tested on more and more Native Americans with ever increasing detail and sensitivity because as you put it "I look at the direction of an argument and seek to "cut it off at the pass" before we get to a critical point. I hate wasting breath on arguments which might someday become irrelevant or are already irrelevant"

What incredible hubris! Your breath must be really valuable. Really, what you should do is go to every current thread right now and "cut it off at the pass".

Because of DNA testing it is now generally accepted as fact that Native American are from Asian origin. They are even concluding that they came not only from Asian origin but a single ancestral group. This one ancestral population was in the land of Lehi and Co (wherever that was, you can just cut that issue off at the pass and let us know now where it was) for thousands of years before they showed up. SO:

If Lehi and Co showed up 600BC, then it is going to show a variance, a real identifiable variance even if you can't identify who that variance specifically was. Go ahead and tell me that does not mean anything because we don't know what Lehi's DNA looked like. However, if there is no pre columbian vaiance identified or rather no unidentifiable variances found, then you can get way closer to concluding that therefore Lehi was never there. That conclusion to me strains the credibility of the intermixing argument. Now both bunk and I say that this should be unlikely and that there may be something even unidentifiable to show up as a variance with this testing but I don't think that means this issue should be dismissed. Not in the least. To me this is a solid wait and see situation that may have real consequences for mormon apologetics. And look, the DNA testing is only going to be done on more people and become more sensitive over time so no I really don't think you should "cut this dialogue off at the pass".

The rich irony is that you wind up impaling yourself with your own argument. Your, "you can't use DNA because you can't identify Lehi's DNA whether the DNA went extint or not" which puts you in such a classic apologetic no lose position, is actually made relevant by its fantastic irrelance. If there is no unidentifiable pre columbian variance in the population (and that is really where the early results seem to be heading) then it would not be unreasonable to say that there was no Lehi. Would you say that might be a problem for the Lehi coming over and intermixing theory?

See, it has always been about the apples. I am not playing.

[Tarski]

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?

no go bukowski. Thats not my logic.

I have never required that the BoM's miracle stories be factual as a prerequisite for its being "remotely historical".

Perhaps your sense of fair analogy really is that far off but I think we really both know that the issue of the historicity of the BoM is not on par with that of the Bible. It isn't just the Bible thumpers that claim this but any secularist can see it too.

It matters not that the Bible is full of fairy tales. It is still in a different class with regard to its relationship to actual history and with regard to provenance. In the case of the BoM, it is not just the miraculous events, not just the possibility of the inclusion of exaggerations and dubious folktales, but rather the whole cultural setting and historical characters are entirely fictional as far as any accepted evidence can tell us.

[mfbukowski]

I love how this goes for you.

I am so pleased I can barely contain myself.

Your position is to simply maintain a position that requires no defense because it is based on you commiting to nothing.

Hardly. I am committed to the position that the "Book of Mormon is true", and is an historical document. You have not even stated your position clearly. It is you who have not committed to a position except on this silly DNA issue.

Here is what you said to cdowis "The point I was trying to make is that if we are willing to acknowledge that Lehi's line went extinct, the whole sampling error argument becomes irrelevant" Then you say this " Please note I am not arguing that all the bloodlines of Lehi did in fact die out- I am just saying that if they did the BOM would be just as true- the existence or non-existence of the DNA is irrelevant" Then you say this "many LDS would be happy to actually find Hebrew DNA in the Native Americans- but what they are not thinking about is that would not prove it was Lehi's anyway"

Brilliantly quoted. You got that much right.

So based on your two statements we can conclude the following:

1. If Lehi's line went extinct, the DNA argument is irrelevant.

2. If Lehi's line did not go extinct, the DNA argument is irrelevant.

Another feat of brilliance. Yes, I said the DNA argument is irrelevant. We could think of a few other examples too. How about this one? "If Niagara Falls exists, the DNA argument is irrelevant". Do you like that one?

This is a master stroke on your part.

Gosh, I didn't think I was that smart.

If DNA is so irrelevant to the BOM, then why did the Church bother to change the intro to the BOM?

I don't know- ask them. They forgot to ask my opinion, darn it.

Simply because they decided now was the time to de-correlate McConkie? You want to dismiss out of hand an advancing type of science being tested on more and more Native Americans with ever increasing detail and sensitivity because as you put it "I look at the direction of an argument and seek to "cut it off at the pass" before we get to a critical point. I hate wasting breath on arguments which might someday become irrelevant or are already irrelevant"

You should try it. Apparently, you like spending time on irrelevant arguments.

What incredible hubris! Your breath must be really valuable. Really, what you should do is go to every current thread right now and "cut it off at the pass".

Good idea, but sorry, I don't have enough breath. As you already pointed out, it is too expensive.

[mfbukowski]

Because of DNA testing it is now generally accepted as fact that Native American are from Asian origin. They are even concluding that they came not only from Asian origin but a single ancestral group.

Yes, in fact there is DNA from only about 70 individuals. Of course that doesn't mean that only 70 individuals cross the Straits, it just means that many many many of the strains of DNA have died out, just as perhaps Lehi's has.

This one ancestral population was in the land of Lehi and Co (wherever that was, you can just cut that issue off at the pass and let us know now where it was) for thousands of years before they showed up. SO: If Lehi and Co showed up 600BC, then it is going to show a variance, a real identifiable variance even if you can't identify who that variance specifically was.

True, unless that line was like the many others which died out. Are you telling me that only 70 people crossed the Straits? Do you want to CFR me on that or are you capable of finding a Wikipedia article on your own?

Go ahead and tell me that does not mean anything because we don't know what Lehi's DNA looked like.

If you insist. It doesn't mean anything because we don't know what Lehi's DNA looked like. Theoretically he could have been Asian. (I don't think he was, but it is possible)

However, if there is no pre columbian vaiance identified or rather no unidentifiable variances found, then you can get way closer to concluding that therefore Lehi was never there.

I knew it was going this way in spite of your denials. This would be true unless the line died out of course.

That conclusion to me strains the credibility of the intermixing argument. Now both bunk and I both say that this should be unlikely and that there simply must be something even unidentifiable to show up as a variance with this testing but I don't think that means this issue should be dismissed. Not in the least. And look, the DNA testing is only going to be done on more people and become more sensitive over time so no I really don't think you should "cut this dialogue off at the pass".

I never made the "intermixing argument", though it is a possibility. Even if the variants show up, it won't prove anything. What don't you understand about that? It could be one, it could be the other but either way it proves nothing. If there are variants, they might be Lehi or not. If there are no variants, it could be because he never was there, or the line died out. Guess what- history is impossible to prove with certainty- there are always uncertainties and other possibilities. Living with ambiguity is a sign of maturity - get used to it.

The rich irony is that you wind up impaling yourself with your own argument.

That remains to be seen.

Your, "you can't use DNA because you can't identify Lehi's DNA whether the DNA went extint or not" which puts you in such a classic apologetic no lose position, is actually made relevant by its fantastic irrelance.

Huh? Re-read that sentence and tell me what it means. Relevant by it's irrelevance? Man, you are smarter than me if you can understand that one.

If there is no unidentifiable pre columbian variance in the population (and that is really where the early results seem to be heading) then it would not be unreasonable to say that there was no Lehi.

Hey you are better at double negatives than I am! See- somehow I knew you were going to get to this point. Gosh I must be a psychic or something. Yes, IF the tests are perfect and they never will be, and IF it can be proven that the line did not in fact die out, which cannot be proven, then yes, it MIGHT be reasonable to say that Lehi had no descendents in the Americas, not that he never existed. But of course that requires to unprovable events to be proven, so good luck with that one.

Would you say that might be a problem for the Lehi coming over and intermixing theory?

If he never existed? Yes that would be a problem for the intermixing theory, but of course there are other problems proving he never existed. You know, kind of like proving God never existed. Good luck with that one.

See, it has always been about the apples.

Gosh, I am so surprised.

I am not playing.

Maybe you should try. You are not doing that well this way.

[mfbukowski]

It matters not that the Bible is full of fairy tales. It is still in a different class with regard to its relationship to actual history and with regard to provenance.

Not surprisingly, I disagree.

There is no comparison between the amount of "history" which exists in the Middle East and the Americas period. Not as much is known about the Americas so it really is not a fair comparison. And all "provenance" is, is self-referential history. The BOM has not even been known for 200 years yet- the bible arguably goes back and has been known for what- 4,000 years? Twenty times longer? Of course it would have more self-referential history. The BOM has no Talmud, not Mishna, no Dead Sea scrolls equivalent- no ancient commentaries known at all- yet. So of course you cannot compare the "provenance".

Ask me again in a thousand years or so and we'll talk about it. Of course we will only be 25% there.

[Tarski]

Not surprisingly, I disagree.

And all "provenance" is, is self-referential history.

Oh really? I guess we don't even need the concept then.

There is no comparison between the amount of "history" which exists in the Middle East and the Americas period. Not as much is known about the Americas so it really is not a fair comparison. The BOM has not even been known for 200 years yet- the bible arguably goes back and has been known for what- 4,000 years? Twenty times longer? Of course it would have more self-referential history. The BOM has no Talmud, not Mishna, no Dead Sea scrolls equivalent- no ancient commentaries known at all- yet.

Good argument for my point. Thanks

Ask me again in a thousand years or so and we'll talk about it. Of course we will only be 25% there.

We will both be dead by then but I am confident that the historicity of the BoM will no longer be a live question even for your progeny.

PS, I notice that you seem to think that an imagined status of the BoM a thousand years from now could somehow affect its status now.

My comment was directed to the present. You are free to imagine a fantastic future for the BoM.

[cdowis]

Because of DNA testing it is now generally accepted as fact that Native American are from Asian origin.

Where have you been?

This has been discussed at length in this forum. For example, this conclusion is based on faulty sampling. Also, the source of haplogroup X is still unknown. There is at least one case where a full blooded Amerindian has a common ancestor with a woman from Greece.

I am not inclined to go over the many articles and posts on this issue, but I suggest that you do your homework before making your self look very silly and uninformed.

[Bunk]

Where have you been?

This has been discussed at length in this forum. For example, this conclusion is based on faulty sampling. Also, the source of haplogroup X is still unknown. There is at least one case where a full blooded Amerindian has a common ancestor with a woman from Greece.

I am not inclined to go over the many articles and posts on this issue, but I suggest that you do your homework before making your self look very silly and uninformed.

Probably the best way to avoid looking silly and uninformed is to read outside this message board. Hence, I think Lloyd was saying it is generally accepted outside this forum that Native Americans are of Asian origin, and this is based not only on DNA but on much older and accepted research in archaeology, blood group analysis, and linguistics. His statement is quite true.

This isn't to say the case is closed. There is your precious greek indian (CFR?) and some controversy remains about haplogroup X (geographic controversy perhaps, while in terms of age it fits nicely with the other major mtDNA haplogroups and doesn't fit the Book of Mormon timeline at all), and of course something interesting could turn up with further sampling. Time will tell.

[cdowis]

Probably the best way to avoid looking silly and uninformed is to read outside this message board. Hence, I think Lloyd was saying it is generally accepted outside this forum that Native Americans are of Asian origin, and this is based not only on DNA but on much older and accepted research in archaeology, blood group analysis, and linguistics. His statement is quite true.

Actually, transmigration into the Americas, besides the Bering Strait, is widely accepted, even outside this forum. YOU are the one who needs to look outside the antimormon commentaries and get yourself updated with the many articles and documentaries on this issue.

I have also pointed out two very specific problems with the Asia only theory. This research is based on fatally flawed sampling, for example.

Get yourself educated on this issue before making yourself look silly. We have little tolerance for deliberate ignorance in this forum.

[Bunk]

Actually, transmigration into the Americas besides the Bering Strait, is widely accepted, even outside this forum. YOU are the one who needs to look outside the antimormon commentaries and get yourself updated.

Please read my posts in this thread. Even I accept the possibility of transmigrations, and I predict there will eventually be DNA exceptions to the current genetic picture, and apologists will call these exceptions Lehi candidates. Hence, I suspect I agree more with you than I do with Southerton, although your rough manner on the forum is very definitely a major turn-off.

I have pointed out two very specific problems with the Asia only theory.

"faulty sampling" By this I think you mean incomplete sampling. This just means you think more extensive sampling will turn up exceptions. I think this too.

"X haplotype source unknown" In fact the true geographic source of all the mtDNA is vague, because where people live today isn't necessarily where they lived 10-20k years ago, but the time these markers arrived in the Americas is less vague and definitely doesn't fit the BoM. This is more important than geography, IMO.

"Greek indian" again, CFR please?

I don't see a serious problem with an Asia only theory. At this point, that's what the data says. Even so, I agree if you wish to argue the case is not "closed".

[Bunk]

Get yourself educated on this issue before making yourself look silly. We have little tolerance for deliberate ignorance in this forum.

But an incredible tolerance for troglodytes, as evidenced by your 5-year presence and >6,000 posts.

Good bye. I won't be having further conversations with you.

Both of you need to stop the insults.