Does DNA disprove Lehi story? [Does it ever end?}

[Hemidakota]

By Michael De Groote

Mormon Times

Friday, Sep. 18, 2009

ARTICLE EXCERPT: Ugo Perego, an Italian-born researcher in human genetics, tries to look with a scientist's eye at the controversy surrounding DNA and the Book of Mormon.

He is a bit impatient with some of the strong conclusions of some critics and LDS apologists. There is too little data. We need to be cautious.

"I see that from both the critics' side and the LDS side there is quite a bit of misunderstanding on the subject," Perego said. "We should not fight over it. It seems to me to be almost a waste of time that people will actually entertain the thoughts that either DNA can prove or disprove the Book of Mormon."

ARTICLE LINK: MormonTimes - Does DNA disprove Lehi story?

[Moksha]

Seems like they have taken more than enough samples to come up with some answers. However, Ugo Perego is right that a complete genetic census has not been taken for North and South America. Go slow and stay the course is an excellent recommendation for sailing in the Arctic Ocean. In the here and now, I applaud the Church for deemphasizing that Lamanite stuff. Personally, I view the genetic history of the American natives as being inconsequential to my Church experience.

[Elphaba]

So, is this Lehi Action Doll a collector's item, or can I pick one up at Walmart?

Elph

[ScareBear]

I was hoping that there was actually an answer...however according to the bone structure of the original South Americans and "Natives", it does match identically among the Hebrews. Especially in the ribs. And Nephi did claim that elephants were everywhere on this continent. We all know that elephants don't seem to be indigenous to that region. Finally, elephant (not MASTADON!) fossils have been uncovered. Also, no ancient Books of Mormon have not been unearthed. However--Quetzacoatl was a highly revered God--the Great White Bearded God. Could this be none other than Christ, visiting his sheep in the other fold?

Or was he referring to other dimensions he had to visit, such as the fifth and beyond?

[Gatorman]

This discussion to me is the problem with requiring scientific fact to line up with ones faith. They could prove whatever they want with DNA. It will not change my faith. I will just wait until we have true knowledge to learn the truth.

[Traveler]

Let us not confuse evidence with proof. The one thing I find most interesting as far as DNA disproving the Book of Mormon. If it turns out that the claims of Book of Mormon critics are correct then the same proof disproves the Bible as well. I find it most interesting that a Bible believing Christian would be so anxious to believe something that disproves the Bible.

The Traveler

[thews]

Let us not confuse evidence with proof. The one thing I find most interesting as far as DNA disproving the Book of Mormon. If it turns out that the claims of Book of Mormon critics are correct then the same proof disproves the Bible as well. I find it most interesting that a Bible believing Christian would be so anxious to believe something that disproves the Bible.

The Traveler

Please explain how DNA evidence of people in America would disprove the bible?

FWIW - I completely disagree with you.

[pam]

Of course you would.

[thews]

Of course you would.

Can you elaborate so that I might understand this logic, because it makes no sense to me whatsoever.

[Traveler]

Please explain how DNA evidence of people in America would disprove the bible?

FWIW - I completely disagree with you.

Abraham was less than 10 generations from Noah and Noah was 10 generations from Adam. If DNA proves that there is a greater gap than 20 generations to a common ancestor within 4 thousand years of the Hebrew people - that disproves the Bible. The DNA claim is that there is not a common ancestor within 20,000 years. How do you reconcile that with the Bible?

The Traveler

[thews]

Abraham was less than 10 generations from Noah and Noah was 10 generations from Adam. If DNA proves that there is a greater gap than 20 generations to a common ancestor within 4 thousand years of the Hebrew people - that disproves the Bible. The DNA claim is that there is not a common ancestor within 20,000 years. How do you reconcile that with the Bible?

The Traveler

This is specific to Native Americans, which the Book of Mormon claims were descended from Isreal. We know this isn't true, and I don't see how claiming a gap of 20 generations correlates to this fact in any way, but is a rationalization to somehow make two wrongs equalling a right. Do you agree that Native Americans are not descended from Isreal?

[Traveler]

This is specific to Native Americans, which the Book of Mormon claims were descended from Isreal. We know this isn't true, and I don't see how claiming a gap of 20 generations correlates to this fact in any way, but is a rationalization to somehow make two wrongs equalling a right. Do you agree that Native Americans are not descended from Isreal?

The specific DNA that is referenced is mitochondria or based on the female linage. Since we do not have any known pure Hebrew DNA prior to 600 BC – from which Lehi branched; it is my thought and belief that such efforts are at best inconclusive. Since the Hebrew culture is patriarchal, it is very likely that mitochondria DNA was polluted during the Babylonian captivity after 600BC.

But you seemed to have missed my point – That is that the Bible claims that all peoples of the world are descended from both Noah and Adam and therefore that Hebrew DNA is no more than 20 generations from all peoples of the world. This is Biblical fact which would divert mitochondria of Native Americans more than Book of Mormon fact connecting Lehi. There are possibilities within the Book of Mormon that would allow for the introduction of other DNA other than Lehi’s; Abraham was less than 10 generations from Noah and Noah was 10 generations from Adam. If DNA proves that there is a greater gap than 20 generations to a common ancestor within 4 thousand years of the Hebrew people - that disproves the Bible. The DNA claim is that there is not a common ancestor within 20,000 years. How do you reconcile that with the Bible?

So now I ask you – Do you believe the Bible and if you do; how can you believe that the DNA of Native Americans separates them from Hebrew peoples by 20,000 years or more?

The Traveler

[thews]

The specific DNA that is referenced is mitochondria or based on the female linage. Since we do not have any known pure Hebrew DNA prior to 600 BC – from which Lehi branched; it is my thought and belief that such efforts are at best inconclusive. Since the Hebrew culture is patriarchal, it is very likely that mitochondria DNA was polluted during the Babylonian captivity after 600BC.

But you seemed to have missed my point – That is that the Bible claims that all peoples of the world are descended from both Noah and Adam and therefore that Hebrew DNA is no more than 20 generations from all peoples of the world. This is Biblical fact which would divert mitochondria of Native Americans more than Book of Mormon fact connecting Lehi. There are possibilities within the Book of Mormon that would allow for the introduction of other DNA other than Lehi’s; Abraham was less than 10 generations from Noah and Noah was 10 generations from Adam. If DNA proves that there is a greater gap than 20 generations to a common ancestor within 4 thousand years of the Hebrew people - that disproves the Bible. The DNA claim is that there is not a common ancestor within 20,000 years. How do you reconcile that with the Bible?

So now I ask you – Do you believe the Bible and if you do; how can you believe that the DNA of Native Americans separates them from Hebrew peoples by 20,000 years or more?

The Traveler

I believe the bible is true and I don't question it. The historical evidence shows the storis in it are accurate. Painting a supposed path back to Noah is a reach. The point I'm making is that we know, through DNA evidence, that Amrican Indians are not descended from Isreal. That is a fact, but you are claiming some other scenario negates it. Do you deny this is a fact?

[Gatorman]

thews - I think I see what Traveler is saying that you are missing. Let's take an excercise here. Assumptions are that DNA testing is correct.

If DNA testing is correct and it shows that there is no single common ancestor between the indians and hebrews for more than 20 generations, then, the BoM is false. This is your argument.

However, if there is no common ancestor for more than 20 generations, then, doesn't that also prove that the biblical time line for Noah or Adam is disproved. Your evidence also makes the point that Adam and Eve or Noah would have been MUCH further back than the bible supports.

So, if the DNA is trusted, then, neither the BoM or bible can be true, because, DNA disproves what is believed in them. At least, that is how I am reading what he posted. You can't take one DNA 'fact' and ignore another.

[Justice]

I believe the bible is true and I don't question it. The historical evidence shows the storis in it are accurate. Painting a supposed path back to Noah is a reach. The point I'm making is that we know, through DNA evidence, that Amrican Indians are not descended from Isreal. That is a fact, but you are claiming some other scenario negates it. Do you deny this is a fact?

It also depends on who you want to listen to.

I have seen non-LDS reports that state there ARE Hebrew roots found in the Native Americans (South in this case, but I have also seen ones about North as well).

The article is long, but you get the point early on. I have bolded what I feel are some important points to consider.

Was Hebrew DNA recently found in American Indian populations in South America? According to Scott R. Woodward, executive director of Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, a DNA marker, called the "Cohen modal haplotype," sometimes associated with Hebrew people, has been found in Colombia, Brazil and Bolivia.

But it probably has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon -- at least not directly.

•DNA good for research, but won't prove Book of Mormon

For years several critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and of the Book of Mormon have claimed that the lack of Hebrew DNA markers in living Native American populations is evidence the book can't be true. They say the book's description of ancient immigrations of Israelites is fictional.

"But," said Woodward, "as Hugh Nibley used to say, 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' "

Critic Thomas Murphy, for example, wrote in one article about how the Cohen modal haplotype had been found in the Lemba clan in Africa. The Lemba clan's oral tradition claims it has Jewish ancestors.

Murphy then complained, "If the (Book of Mormon) documented actual Israelite migrations to the New World, then one would expect to find similar evidence to that found in a Lemba clan in one or more Native American populations. Such evidence, however, has not been forthcoming."

Until now.

So will Murphy and other critics use this new evidence of Hebrew DNA markers to prove the Book of Mormon is correct? Probably not. But neither should anyone else.

Why?

According to Woodward, the way critics have used DNA studies to attack the Book of Mormon is "clearly wrong." And it would be equally wrong to use similar DNA evidence to try to prove it.

This is because "not all DNA (evidence) is created equal," Woodward said.

According to Woodward, while forensic DNA (popularized in TV shows like "CSI") looks for the sections of DNA that vary greatly from individual to individual, the sections of DNA used for studying large groups are much smaller and do not change from individual to individual.

Studies using this second type of DNA yield differing levels of reliability or, as Woodward calls it, "resolution."

At a lower resolution the confidence in the results goes down. At higher resolution confidence goes up in the results.

Guess which level of resolution critics of the Book of Mormon use?

The critics' problem now is what they do with the low-resolution discovery of Hebrew DNA in American Indian populations.

For people who believe that the Book of Mormon is a true account, the problem is to resist the temptation to misuse this new discovery.

Woodward says that most likely, when higher-resolution tests are used, we will learn that the Hebrew DNA in native populations can be traced to conquistadors whose ancestors intermarried with Jewish people in Spain or even more modern migrations.

Ironically, it is the misuse of evidence that gave critics fuel to make their DNA arguments in the first place. According to Woodward, the critics are attacking the straw man that all American Indians are only descendants of the migrations described in the Book of Mormon and from no other source.

Although some Latter-day Saints have assumed this was the case, this is not a claim the Book of Mormon itself actually makes. Scholars have argued for more than 50 years that the book allows for the migrations meeting an existing population.

This completely undermines the critics' conclusions. They argue with evangelic zeal that the Book of Mormon demands that no other DNA came to America but from Book of Mormon groups.

Yet, one critic admitted to Woodward that he had never read the Book of Mormon.

Woodward also sees that it is essential to read the Book of Mormon story closely to understand what type of DNA the Book of Mormon people would have had. The Book of Mormon describes different migrations to the New World. The most prominent account is the 600-B.C. departure from Jerusalem of a small group led by a prophet named Lehi. But determining Lehi's DNA is difficult because the book claims he is not even Jewish, but a descendant of the biblical Joseph.

According to Woodward, even if you assume we knew what DNA to look for, finding DNA evidence of Book of Mormon people may be very difficult. When a small group of people intermarry into a large population, the DNA markers that might identify their descendants could entirely disappear -- even though their genealogical descendants could number in the millions.

This means it is possible that almost every American Indian alive today could be genealogically related to Lehi's family but still retain no identifiable DNA marker to prove it. In other words, you could be related genealogically to and perhaps even feel a spiritual kinship with an ancestor but still not have any vestige of his DNA.

Such are the vagaries, ambiguities and mysteries of the study of DNA.

So will we ever find DNA from Lehi's people? Woodward hopes so.

"I don't dismiss the possibility," said Woodward, "but the probability is pretty low."

Woodward speculated about it, imagining he were able to identify pieces of DNA that would be part of Lehi's gene pool. Then, imagine if a match was found in the Native American population.

But even then, Woodward would be cautious. "It could have been other people who share the same (DNA) markers," said Woodward about the imaginary scenario.

"It's an amazingly complex picture. To think that you can prove (group relationships) like you can use DNA to identify a (criminal) is not on the same scale of scientific inquiry."

Like the Book of Mormon itself, from records buried for centuries in the Hill Cumorah, genetic "proof" may remain hid up unto the Lord.

[Kawazu]

It also depends on who you want to listen to.

I have seen non-LDS reports that state there ARE Hebrew roots found in the Native Americans (South in this case, but I have also seen ones about North as well).

The article is long, but you get the point early on. I have bolded what I feel are some important points to consider.

Was Hebrew DNA recently found in American Indian populations in South America? According to Scott R. Woodward, executive director of Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, a DNA marker, called the "Cohen modal haplotype," sometimes associated with Hebrew people, has been found in Colombia, Brazil and Bolivia.

But it probably has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon -- at least not directly.

•DNA good for research, but won't prove Book of Mormon

For years several critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and of the Book of Mormon have claimed that the lack of Hebrew DNA markers in living Native American populations is evidence the book can't be true. They say the book's description of ancient immigrations of Israelites is fictional.

"But," said Woodward, "as Hugh Nibley used to say, 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' "

Critic Thomas Murphy, for example, wrote in one article about how the Cohen modal haplotype had been found in the Lemba clan in Africa. The Lemba clan's oral tradition claims it has Jewish ancestors.

Murphy then complained, "If the (Book of Mormon) documented actual Israelite migrations to the New World, then one would expect to find similar evidence to that found in a Lemba clan in one or more Native American populations. Such evidence, however, has not been forthcoming."

Until now.

So will Murphy and other critics use this new evidence of Hebrew DNA markers to prove the Book of Mormon is correct? Probably not. But neither should anyone else.

Why?

According to Woodward, the way critics have used DNA studies to attack the Book of Mormon is "clearly wrong." And it would be equally wrong to use similar DNA evidence to try to prove it.

This is because "not all DNA (evidence) is created equal," Woodward said.

According to Woodward, while forensic DNA (popularized in TV shows like "CSI") looks for the sections of DNA that vary greatly from individual to individual, the sections of DNA used for studying large groups are much smaller and do not change from individual to individual.

Studies using this second type of DNA yield differing levels of reliability or, as Woodward calls it, "resolution."

At a lower resolution the confidence in the results goes down. At higher resolution confidence goes up in the results.

Guess which level of resolution critics of the Book of Mormon use?

The critics' problem now is what they do with the low-resolution discovery of Hebrew DNA in American Indian populations.

For people who believe that the Book of Mormon is a true account, the problem is to resist the temptation to misuse this new discovery.

Woodward says that most likely, when higher-resolution tests are used, we will learn that the Hebrew DNA in native populations can be traced to conquistadors whose ancestors intermarried with Jewish people in Spain or even more modern migrations.

Ironically, it is the misuse of evidence that gave critics fuel to make their DNA arguments in the first place. According to Woodward, the critics are attacking the straw man that all American Indians are only descendants of the migrations described in the Book of Mormon and from no other source.

Although some Latter-day Saints have assumed this was the case, this is not a claim the Book of Mormon itself actually makes. Scholars have argued for more than 50 years that the book allows for the migrations meeting an existing population.

This completely undermines the critics' conclusions. They argue with evangelic zeal that the Book of Mormon demands that no other DNA came to America but from Book of Mormon groups.

Yet, one critic admitted to Woodward that he had never read the Book of Mormon.

Woodward also sees that it is essential to read the Book of Mormon story closely to understand what type of DNA the Book of Mormon people would have had. The Book of Mormon describes different migrations to the New World. The most prominent account is the 600-B.C. departure from Jerusalem of a small group led by a prophet named Lehi. But determining Lehi's DNA is difficult because the book claims he is not even Jewish, but a descendant of the biblical Joseph.

According to Woodward, even if you assume we knew what DNA to look for, finding DNA evidence of Book of Mormon people may be very difficult. When a small group of people intermarry into a large population, the DNA markers that might identify their descendants could entirely disappear -- even though their genealogical descendants could number in the millions.

This means it is possible that almost every American Indian alive today could be genealogically related to Lehi's family but still retain no identifiable DNA marker to prove it. In other words, you could be related genealogically to and perhaps even feel a spiritual kinship with an ancestor but still not have any vestige of his DNA.

Such are the vagaries, ambiguities and mysteries of the study of DNA.

So will we ever find DNA from Lehi's people? Woodward hopes so.

"I don't dismiss the possibility," said Woodward, "but the probability is pretty low."

Woodward speculated about it, imagining he were able to identify pieces of DNA that would be part of Lehi's gene pool. Then, imagine if a match was found in the Native American population.

But even then, Woodward would be cautious. "It could have been other people who share the same (DNA) markers," said Woodward about the imaginary scenario.

"It's an amazingly complex picture. To think that you can prove (group relationships) like you can use DNA to identify a (criminal) is not on the same scale of scientific inquiry."

Like the Book of Mormon itself, from records buried for centuries in the Hill Cumorah, genetic "proof" may remain hid up unto the Lord.

Where is the original link to this article, please?

[Moksha]

"as Hugh Nibley used to say, 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' "

That's our story and we're sticking to it for now.

Of course, Nibley could that spoken of symbolic truths that exist outside of literal history and scored a perfect bullseye.

:)

[Vort]

This is specific to Native Americans, which the Book of Mormon claims were descended from Isreal. We know this isn't true

This is false. You are promulgating a lie, though I assume you don't know it's a lie.

In fact, we do not "know" that American Indians have no Israelite blood. There is currently no way to determine such a thing. I might as well ask if you have a Jewish ancestor 2500 years back. How could you tell if you did? There might possibly be some genetic evidence, but more likely there would not.

[Vort]

The point I'm making is that we know, through DNA evidence, that Amrican Indians are not descended from Isreal. That is a fact

This is false. You are promulgating a lie, though I assume you don't know it's a lie.

In fact, we do not "know" that American Indians have no Israelite blood. There is currently no way to determine such a thing. I might as well ask if you have a Jewish ancestor 2500 years back. How could you tell if you did? There might possibly be some genetic evidence, but more likely there would not.

[Vort]

Of course, Nibley could that spoken of symbolic truths that exist outside of literal history and scored a perfect bullseye.

:)

This is just a modern tweak on the ancient Gnostic heresy that sought to explain Christianity in terms of Greek rationality. "Now we know that there can only be one God, since Plato showed that. So this idea that God has a Son who is also God can't be thought of as literally true." "Now we know that dead people don't really come alive again, so this idea of resurrection cannot be thought of as literally true." "Now we know that blind people can't really get their vision back, so these claims of so-called 'miracles' cannot be thought of as literally true."

The Book of Mormon is literally true. I am not a Gnostic.

[Traveler]

thews - I think I see what Traveler is saying that you are missing. Let's take an excercise here. Assumptions are that DNA testing is correct.

If DNA testing is correct and it shows that there is no single common ancestor between the indians and hebrews for more than 20 generations, then, the BoM is false. This is your argument.

However, if there is no common ancestor for more than 20 generations, then, doesn't that also prove that the biblical time line for Noah or Adam is disproved. Your evidence also makes the point that Adam and Eve or Noah would have been MUCH further back than the bible supports.

So, if the DNA is trusted, then, neither the BoM or bible can be true, because, DNA disproves what is believed in them. At least, that is how I am reading what he posted. You can't take one DNA 'fact' and ignore another.

Thank you for your effort. When it is noon day and someone is standing in the sun declaring it night - I am convinced that there is nothing to be gained in trying to reason with them that the sun is indeed is shining.

The point is not that humans are not related but how far back we must go to find a common ancestor for us all. I am convinced that it is not that our friend does not understand as much as they do not want to understand. There is none so blind as he who will not see.

The Traveler

Edited September 21, 2009 by Traveler

[Lorenzo]

I think we would be being a lot kinder to Thews and people like him if we gave them the benefit of the doubt. Instead of saying they are spewing lies, perhaps we could exercise a little patience and tolerance, by suggesting they may be "mistaken". Anybody can be mistaken, anybody. Only liars lie. (Those are everywhere, but are much harder to identify than someone who just makes a mistake!) So if you accuse someone's statement of being a "lie", that's no different than callling him a liar to his face . How are we to know a person's motives, whether what he says is because he is evil and lying , or because he is good but mistaken . In the words of Olive Oyl's pappy, paraphrased, "Somebody owes Thews an apology."

As for the topic itself, DNA is but one biological proof as to the connection (or non connection) of the Nephites with the ancient Israelites. Other facts that could be considered (but probably won't be) include melanin, blood types, and dental structure.

[livy111us]

I really enjoy this video clip when it comes to DNA. It is an eye opener for anyone concerned with DNA and The Book of Mormon. It has actual population geneticists, anthropologists, linguists, and other scholars who affirm The Book of Mormon as an ancient record.

and several other videos on DNA

http://www.youtube.com/my_playlists?pi=0&ps=20&sf=&sa=0&sq=&dm=0&p=45B7603FF4F9AA81