Why Doesn'T Lehite Dna Studies Yield Results Like Ashkenazi Jews In Colorado, Lemba Jews In Zimbabwe Or John The Baptist In Bulgaria?

[Doug the Hutt]

"A team of researchers believe a knuckle bone found buried beneath a Bulgarian church may belong to John the Baptist, the New Testament prophet who heralded the ministry of Jesus.

The archaeologists from Oxford University were surprised that the bones dated from the first century AD, the time of John’s life, and the DNA was consistent with a person of Near East heritage."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/06/bones-of-john-the-baptist-possibly-discovered/

"A population of native American Indians from the US state of Colorado has been found to have a genetic mutation typical of Ashkenazi Jews. The finding suggests the presence of common roots that date back to the days of Christopher Columbus.

­The so-called “Ashkenazi mutation” is a deleterious modification in BRCA1 gene which increases risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. Researchers from the Sheba Medical Center in Israel have found it in the DNA of descendants of those Indians who moved from Mexico to Colorado some 200 years ago.

The same very mutation was earlier tracked in Hispanic Americans whose ancestors also arrived in the United States from Mexico and South America.

Computer analysis of genetic data has revealed that the two groups should have a common ancestor – a Jewish person who moved from Europe to the New World as long as 600 years ago. It was the time when Christopher Columbus discovered America, and the Jewish population was expelled from Spain.

In their publication in the European Journal of Human Genetics, the team, led by Eitan Friedman, notes that Colorado’s Mexican Indians do not seem to have any traditions that would link them to Jews."

http://www.rt.com/news/jewish-roots-colorado-indians-645/

So the Ashkenazi Jew DNA was a small contribution to a larger population but still managed to not totally disappear.

Then there's the Lemba tribe of black Jews in Zimbabwe. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8550614.stm

The thumb knuckle in Bulgaria is consistent with Near Eastern DNA. I wouldn't even care if it's John the Baptist or not -- the DNA wound up there and its discovery proves that the method they used to determine its origin works.

So there's three cases of showing how DNA evidence links certain people back to Israel. My guess is that these teams spent far less time and money to achieve positive results than Book of Mormon-oriented studies. Why is it that they can yield affirmative results in their DNA studies but LDS DNA studies regarding Book of Mormon people always end up talking about political affiliations and insignificant DNA contributions and being swallowed up by a larger group and overstates the significance of 'hebraisms' and re-characterizes BOM metallurgy into something that removes the contrast and comparisons indicated by the text and rewrites BOM zoology that converts any specific animal into something undefinable and elusive and converts BOM money into sets of measuring cups and a myriad of other excuses that always appear insignificant and impotent especially when set side by side against these studies? These other researchers can find evidence that's 2000 years old. The Book of Mormon has Lehites and Mulekites supposedly living at that time in the New World in vast numbers. Have any graves or tombs been examined dating back to Book of Mormon times that show genetic links to the Near East circa 600BC or do they only show Asian origins?

[thesometimesaint]

Doug the Hutt:

1. If the DNA didn't survive we wouldn't know about it.

2. We don't know what Lehite DNA looked like.

3. The Church has no position on where the Lehites landed, other than the New World.

4. Any Iron or steel implements would have long ago rusted to dust.

5.. Last time I looked the Middle East is part of Asia.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well, Doug, you are a smart guy. You should be able to answer your own question here.

What are the reasons for the difference you are asking about?

"

Why Doesn'T Lehite Dna Studies Yield Results Like Ashkenazi Jews In Colorado, Lemba Jews In Zimbabwe Or John The Baptist In Bulgaria".

Can you answer your own question?

[Freedom]

Few if any bones have been found due to the nature of the soil. This has created a huge problem in identifying any traits of the early people of central america. There is another piece to this puzzle that dna critics seem to ignore. If we are to find evidence of jewish DNA among the american natives, why hasn't anybody been able to identify the location of the the other 11 tribes that were scattered? They left in far greater numbers than the few dozen that arrived here in the americas. We should be finding Israelite dna all over Europe and Asia but we have not. There is also the reality that it is very difficult to find true source dna in old bones. As soon as you touch an object, it becomes contaminated with your own dna.

There are thousands of bones found all the time and from time to time they find one with ties to Israel. There are two conclusions. One is that all the other bones are not from Israel, or that all the other bones are from Israel but did not contain this special link. The latter argument is more sound and more consistent with dna research. It suggests that not all ancient Israelite carried this particular marker so when they find one that does, it receives more attention than is warranted.

Unless we know the numbers of the original groups that arrived here, how quickly they intermarried, how many of the original group produced offspring, and other critical data, it si impossible to judge if dna should show up. This study also makes the wild assumption that a jew 600 years ago copulated with natives here in the Americas. Who knows where this marker showed up and if it has to be uniquely of Israelite origin.

[Freedom]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10464606

It is important to note, as well, that the Ashkenazi mutation only shows up in one particular group of Jews, making the odds of this particular Jew from eastern Europe being in the group that came to the Americas 600 years ago and also happening to have children, and being lucky enough for their descendants to survive...

I think you get the point.

Also, dna research does not suggest that this marker is uniquely Jewish, but rather that it is most prominent in one specific small group of Jews. The marker is found in all genetic groups and a common source is only assumed. It could just as easily come the other way: it may have started in another group but flourished among this particular group of Jews. Nevertheless, it appears clear that the popular media has made a story out of nothing. The assumption that it arrived as long as 600 years ago is based on the hypothesis that nobody came to the Americas prior to this time. So, they make the assumption that 600 years ago was the first contact, and they then place the arrival at this earliest time. So, they have no idea when it arrived or who brought it.

[robuchan]

Few if any bones have been found due to the nature of the soil. This has created a huge problem in identifying any traits of the early people of central america. There is another piece to this puzzle that dna critics seem to ignore. If we are to find evidence of jewish DNA among the american natives, why hasn't anybody been able to identify the location of the the other 11 tribes that were scattered? They left in far greater numbers than the few dozen that arrived here in the americas. We should be finding Israelite dna all over Europe and Asia but we have not. There is also the reality that it is very difficult to find true source dna in old bones. As soon as you touch an object, it becomes contaminated with your own dna.

There are thousands of bones found all the time and from time to time they find one with ties to Israel. There are two conclusions. One is that all the other bones are not from Israel, or that all the other bones are from Israel but did not contain this special link. The latter argument is more sound and more consistent with dna research. It suggests that not all ancient Israelite carried this particular marker so when they find one that does, it receives more attention than is warranted.

Unless we know the numbers of the original groups that arrived here, how quickly they intermarried, how many of the original group produced offspring, and other critical data, it si impossible to judge if dna should show up. This study also makes the wild assumption that a jew 600 years ago copulated with natives here in the Americas. Who knows where this marker showed up and if it has to be uniquely of Israelite origin.

They could study Zelph's bones. Does he have Middle Eastern DNA?

[Kevin Christensen]

Several of the Maxwell Institute articles on DNA mention the situation of the Lemba. For instance,

One group of Jewish migrants who seem to be currently winning the genetic lottery is the African Lemba.[27] Southerton cites this example as his expected outcome for Lehi and others. However, the process of genetic drift and Y chromosome coalescence is underway; 30 percent of Lemba males are African in paternity, indistinguishable from encompassing Bantu populations. Moreover, the Lemba are African in appearance. Given greater time depth, genetic integration may be complete and all traces of Israelite paternity lost. Yet again, this process is denied Lehi's "descendants" by Southerton.

The ability to genetically identify these groups, such as the Lemba, may be indicative of many movements of small populations or kin-associated groups out of ancient Israel; however, many may well lose their genetic identity, becoming invisible from a genetic perspective, indistinguishable from surrounding populations. These examples suggest the possibility of many such movements, some still genetically visible and some now genetically invisible.

See Ryan Parr in Review 17/1, http://maxwellinstit...17&num=1&id=568

David Stewart went into more detail:

Murphy provides only one example—the Lemba—of an ostensibly non-Jewish group "decisively confirmed" by modern genetics to have at least some Israelite roots. He mentions this group ten times in order to highlight his contrast with Native American groups. One example will illustrate his argument:

[Molecular anthropologists] Neil Bradman and Mark Thomas have used the Cohen haplotype to link ancient Hebrews to the modern population of the Lemba, a black southern African, Bantu-speaking population with oral traditions asserting a Jewish ancestry. . . . Claims regarding an Israelite ancestry for Native Americans would fit into this category, but DNA tests of the Lemba yielded a strikingly different outcome than for Native Americans. Two studies to date have demonstrated that one of the Lemba clans carries a high frequency of "a particular Y-chromosome termed the 'Cohen modal haplotype,' which is known to be characteristic of the paternally inherited Jewish priesthood and is thought, more generally, to be a potential signature haplotype of Judaic origin."

11

The Cohen Modal Haplotype, or CMH, is a genetic signature postulated to be inherited from Aaron Ha-Cohen, brother of Moses. This marker is believed to have originated approximately three thousand years ago, a suitable timeframe for a presumptive origin with the biblical Aaron. The CMH is present in approximately 45—55 percent of Ashkenazic and Sephardic Cohens, compared to 2—3 percent of non-Cohen Jews. It is also found in the Buba clan of the Lemba tribe of Zimbabwe, the Bnei Menashe of India, and in several non-Jewish populations, including Armenians, Kurds, Hungarians, and central and southern Italians.

The Book of Mormon account does not support Murphy's assumption that the CMH, a presumptive genetic signature of Levite priests, should have been present among the Lehites. We would not expect that two small groups that left Israel without Cohens among them would carry the Cohen Modal Haplotype. Lehi was a descendant of Joseph (1 Nephi 5:14). Mulek, son of Zedekiah, was a descendant of Judah. While the lineages of Ishmael, Zoram, and the servants of Mulek are unknown, there is no textual evidence that Cohen priests were present among these groups. Had Cohens been present, it seems unlikely that Lehi and other non-Cohens could have officiated in sacrificial ordinances that were confined to Levite priests by the Mosaic law. Cohens were specifically forbidden to intermarry even with other Israelites, accounting for the high prevalence of the CMH in today's Jewish Cohens and the very limited presence of this unique genetic marker in non-Cohen Jews even after an additional twenty-six centuries of intermixing. The presence of the CMH among Diaspora Jewish groups with Cohens, including the Lemba and Bnei Menashe, and its absence among Native Americans, is an expected finding fully consistent with the Book of Mormon story.

While he sharply criticizes traditional Latter-day Saint teachings because of the lack of homology between modern Jewish and Native American mtDNA, Murphy inexplicably fails to disclose that the Lemba have virtually no mtDNA commonality with other Jewish groups. Dr. Himla Soodyall noted that "using mtDNA the Lemba were indistinguishable from other Bantu-speaking groups."¹² Murphy also fails to mention that in contrast to the Lehite colony and the lost ten tribes, which left Israel over two and a half millennia ago, the Lemba are believed to be descended from Yemenite Jews who migrated to their current location in Zimbabwe less than a thousand years ago, representing a recent offshoot of post-Diaspora Judaism. Yet it is only through the priestly Cohen Modal Haplotype that the Lemba have been identified as having a possible Jewish genetic origin at all.

See David Stewart, FARMS Review 18/1, http://maxwellinstit...18&num=1&id=602

If you really want answers it helps to do a little research.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA.

Edited June 19, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[Freedom]

They could study Zelph's bones. Does he have Middle Eastern DNA?

Since he was a Lamanite he most likely would not have middle eastern DNA. But since there is a strong link between the religions traditions of the natives of Ontario and Quebec with those of North Africa, why have we not found a genetic link? And since we know that people from Iceland have been coming to North America for thousands of years, why haven't the genetics found any trace of them and why don't they seem concerned?

[Gervin]

Few if any bones have been found due to the nature of the soil.

What do you base this statement on? Around 1997 two hundred twenty-four adult burials were excavated at Tikal [Death and Gender in Tikal, Guatemala - Haviland]. I believe hundreds, if not thousands, have likewise been found throughout Mesoamerica.

Edited June 19, 2012 by Gervin

[DJBrown]

"A team of researchers believe a knuckle bone found buried beneath a Bulgarian church may belong to John the Baptist, the New Testament prophet who heralded the ministry of Jesus.

The archaeologists from Oxford University were surprised that the bones dated from the first century AD, the time of John’s life, and the DNA was consistent with a person of Near East heritage."

http://abcnews.go.co...bly-discovered/

"A population of native American Indians from the US state of Colorado has been found to have a genetic mutation typical of Ashkenazi Jews. The finding suggests the presence of common roots that date back to the days of Christopher Columbus.

­The so-called “Ashkenazi mutation” is a deleterious modification in BRCA1 gene which increases risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. Researchers from the Sheba Medical Center in Israel have found it in the DNA of descendants of those Indians who moved from Mexico to Colorado some 200 years ago.

The same very mutation was earlier tracked in Hispanic Americans whose ancestors also arrived in the United States from Mexico and South America.

Computer analysis of genetic data has revealed that the two groups should have a common ancestor – a Jewish person who moved from Europe to the New World as long as 600 years ago. It was the time when Christopher Columbus discovered America, and the Jewish population was expelled from Spain.

In their publication in the European Journal of Human Genetics, the team, led by Eitan Friedman, notes that Colorado’s Mexican Indians do not seem to have any traditions that would link them to Jews."

http://www.rt.com/ne...do-indians-645/

So the Ashkenazi Jew DNA was a small contribution to a larger population but still managed to not totally disappear.

Then there's the Lemba tribe of black Jews in Zimbabwe. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8550614.stm

The thumb knuckle in Bulgaria is consistent with Near Eastern DNA. I wouldn't even care if it's John the Baptist or not -- the DNA wound up there and its discovery proves that the method they used to determine its origin works.

So there's three cases of showing how DNA evidence links certain people back to Israel. My guess is that these teams spent far less time and money to achieve positive results than Book of Mormon-oriented studies. Why is it that they can yield affirmative results in their DNA studies but LDS DNA studies regarding Book of Mormon people always end up talking about political affiliations and insignificant DNA contributions and being swallowed up by a larger group and overstates the significance of 'hebraisms' and re-characterizes BOM metallurgy into something that removes the contrast and comparisons indicated by the text and rewrites BOM zoology that converts any specific animal into something undefinable and elusive and converts BOM money into sets of measuring cups and a myriad of other excuses that always appear insignificant and impotent especially when set side by side against these studies? These other researchers can find evidence that's 2000 years old. The Book of Mormon has Lehites and Mulekites supposedly living at that time in the New World in vast numbers. Have any graves or tombs been examined dating back to Book of Mormon times that show genetic links to the Near East circa 600BC or do they only show Asian origins?

I believe the best study to date demonstrating the difficulty in these population genetics findings is in a 2003 article in The American Journal of Human Genetics entitled "A Population wide Coalescent Analysis of Icelandic Matrilineal and Patrilineal Geneologies: Evidence for a Faster Evolutionary Rater of mtDNA Lineages than Y Chromosomes."

In this study, over 130,000 modern people in Iceland were tested for genetic markers, and their lineages were traced to two groups of ancestors- one group between 1848 and 1892 and the other group from 1742 and 1798. Employing the same mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome DNA analyses alluded to in the popularized Book of Mormon DNA arguments, this study in Iceland "revealed highly positively skewed distributions of descendants to ancestors, with the vast majority of potential ancestors contributing one or no descendants and a minority of ancestors contributing large numbers of descendants."

To quote John Butler, "the majority of people living today in Iceland had ancestors living only 150 years ago that could not be detected based on the Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA tests being performed and yet the genealogical records exist showing that these people lived and were real ancestors."

These are the same DNA tests that those using DNA arguments against the Book of Mormon allude to in trying to convince us that such tests are valid in examining a cohort of about 30 people from 2,600 years ago.

The DNA arguments against the Book of Mormon are really quite crazy. They rely upon enormous false assumptions and the gullibility and ignorance of those they seek to influence.

Agnar Helgason et al., "A Populationwide Coalescent Analysis of Icelandic Matrilineal and Patrilineal Genealogies: Evidence for a Faster Evolutionary Rate of mtDNA Lineages than Y Chromosomes," American Journal of Human Genetics 72/6 (2003): 1370—88

[robuchan]

Since he was a Lamanite he most likely would not have middle eastern DNA.

We've gone so far with the Others theory that we now say a typical Lamanite is most likely not descended from Laman or Lemuel?

[Craig Paxton]

This is not the Jewish DNA that you are looking for...

[Freedom]

We've gone so far with the Others theory that we now say a typical Lamanite is most likely not descended from Laman or Lemuel?

It is quite clear that a lamanite is anything but a nephite so yes, odds are a lamanite would not have Laman or Lemuel as their only ancestor. If you do not understand this basic concept than you have completely missed the point of previous discussions.

[robuchan]

It is quite clear that a lamanite is anything but a nephite so yes, odds are a lamanite would not have Laman or Lemuel as their only ancestor. If you do not understand this basic concept than you have completely missed the point of previous discussions.

OK, I think the Others argument is kooky, but I'll give it to you in this discussion. Still though why would Zelph likely have no Middle Eastern DNA?

[Freedom]

What do you base this statement on? Around 1997 two hundred twenty-four adult burials were excavated at Tikal [Death and Gender in Tikal, Guatemala - Haviland]. I believe hundreds, if not thousands, have likewise been found throughout Mesoamerica.

Poole, Clarke and Diel. Your sites date to well after the Nephite civilization and well outside the proposed location.

[Freedom]

OK, I think the Others argument is kooky, but I'll give it to you in this discussion. Still though why would Zelph likely have no Middle Eastern DNA?

I don't know, why don't members of the 5 Nations have Icelandic or Northern African DNA? Why haven't we found the lost 10 tribes? One common ancestor from 1500 years in his past and you expect to find middle eastern DNA? and you call the Others argument kooky?

[Kevin Christensen]

OK, I think the Others argument is kooky, but I'll give it to you in this discussion. Still though why would Zelph likely have no Middle Eastern DNA?

It's a matter of DNA per se but of identifiable markers. An inescapable factor in the problem is that not all of the descendents pass on the markers. That is the point of the Iceland study. Not that all are only descended from a few, but that only a few markers make the descent. Another is finding Zelph. And then there is the problem of the differing accounts and figuring out what they mean.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[DJBrown]

OK, I think the Others argument is kooky, but I'll give it to you in this discussion. Still though why would Zelph likely have no Middle Eastern DNA?

I think your question demonstrates the fundamental problems with the DNA arguments against the Book of Mormon.

You ask whether an individual would have "no Middle Eastern DNA."

How many DNA sequences exist in an individuals complete genome?

You are phrasing your questions as if the limited, few existing DNA assays rule out the presence of Middle Eastern DNA in a genome.

What is "Middle Eastern" DNA?

Of those genetic markers that have been associated with Middle Eastern peoples, what is the association of those markers with individuals throughout the world known to be from Middle Eastern descent? In other words, what percentage of descendants from a particular group of people or area on earth will retain genetic markers linked to those ancestors or geography? We are asking questions based upon equations for which we have not defined the denominators.

The study in Iceland demonstrated that in only 150 years, a significant portion of a group of descendants from common ancestors will test negative for markers from those ancestors with today's mitochondrial and Y chromosome tests.

[BCSpace]

"A team of researchers believe a knuckle bone found buried beneath a Bulgarian church may belong to John the Baptist, the New Testament prophet who heralded the ministry of Jesus.

The archaeologists from Oxford University were surprised that the bones dated from the first century AD, the time of John’s life, and the DNA was consistent with a person of Near East heritage."

http://abcnews.go.co...bly-discovered/

“Whether that person is John the Baptist is a question that we cannot yet definitely answer and probably never will,” he said.

[Freedom]

“Whether that person is John the Baptist is a question that we cannot yet definitely answer and probably never will,” he said.

My dog has a tooth, all hamsters have teeth. Therefore, my dog is a hamster.

[inquiringmind]

"A population of native American Indians from the US state of Colorado has been found to have a genetic mutation typical of Ashkenazi Jews. The finding suggests the presence of common roots that date back to the days of Christopher Columbus.

­The so-called “Ashkenazi mutation” is a deleterious modification in BRCA1 gene which increases risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. Researchers from the Sheba Medical Center in Israel have found it in the DNA of descendants of those Indians who moved from Mexico to Colorado some 200 years ago.

The same very mutation was earlier tracked in Hispanic Americans whose ancestors also arrived in the United States from Mexico and South America.

Computer analysis of genetic data has revealed that the two groups should have a common ancestor – a Jewish person who moved from Europe to the New World as long as 600 years ago. It was the time when Christopher Columbus discovered America, and the Jewish population was expelled from Spain.

In their publication in the European Journal of Human Genetics, the team, led by Eitan Friedman, notes that Colorado’s Mexican Indians do not seem to have any traditions that would link them to Jews."

http://www.rt.com/ne...do-indians-645/

So the Ashkenazi Jew DNA was a small contribution to a larger population but still managed to not totally disappear.

Then there's the Lemba tribe of black Jews in Zimbabwe. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8550614.stm

The thumb knuckle in Bulgaria is consistent with Near Eastern DNA. I wouldn't even care if it's John the Baptist or not -- the DNA wound up there and its discovery proves that the method they used to determine its origin works.

So there's three cases of showing how DNA evidence links certain people back to Israel. My guess is that these teams spent far less time and money to achieve positive results than Book of Mormon-oriented studies. Why is it that they can yield affirmative results in their DNA studies but LDS DNA studies regarding Book of Mormon people always end up talking about political affiliations and insignificant DNA contributions and being swallowed up by a larger group and overstates the significance of 'hebraisms' and re-characterizes BOM metallurgy into something that removes the contrast and comparisons indicated by the text and rewrites BOM zoology that converts any specific animal into something undefinable and elusive and converts BOM money into sets of measuring cups and a myriad of other excuses that always appear insignificant and impotent especially when set side by side against these studies? These other researchers can find evidence that's 2000 years old. The Book of Mormon has Lehites and Mulekites supposedly living at that time in the New World in vast numbers. Have any graves or tombs been examined dating back to Book of Mormon times that show genetic links to the Near East circa 600BC or do they only show Asian origins?

I don't know (and I'll leave that to the critics and apologists here.)

“Whether that person is John the Baptist is a question that we cannot yet definitely answer and probably never will,” he said.

That may be true, but it's also true that the medieval Church would have no way of knowing that any bones they wanted to pass off as John's would have to belong to a man of middle eastern origin, who died in the first century, if they were to pass modern DNA analysis.

And it seems unlikely that many Jews who died in the first century would leave bones behind that would somehow make their way to Bulgaria, and that the bones the Church would pick to identify as belonging to John the Baptist would be the ones (perhaps the only ones) that had such a history to them.

What I'm interested in is whether the DNA analysis showed any Kohanim markers.

As both of John's parents were Kohanim, it would be very easy to prove that this knuckle bone doesn't belong to him.

In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron. (Luke 1:5.)

I wish the article went into more detail then this.

The archaeologists from Oxford University were surprised that the bones dated from the first century AD, the time of John’s life, and the DNA was consistent with a person of Near East heritage...."A team of researchers believe a knuckle bone found buried beneath a Bulgarian church may belong to John the Baptist, the New Testament prophet who heralded the ministry of Jesus.

The archaeologists from Oxford University were surprised that the bones dated from the first century AD, the time of John’s life, and the DNA was consistent with a person of Near East heritage."

http://abcnews.go.co...bly-discovered/

If they didn't test for Kohanim markers (and I can't really tell if they did from what I read here), I hope they do more testing.

THANK YOU for posting this Doug.

Edited June 20, 2012 by inquiringmind

[bu11fr0g]

DNA results are very good at identifying the common and predominant origin of a piece of DNA.

For the BRCA mutation, the individuals that have this piece can be specificall identified.

For the African Jews, the substantial origin can be identified.

For the bone, the substantial origin can be identified.

Re: the Book of Mormon, there are no morphologic traits to separate Lehi-descended individuals. The small founding population allows genetic drift. What can be definitively stated is that there is no evidence of a major contribution of middle eastern DNA to any population studied to date.