Book of Mormon vs. DNA

[DeepShadow]

It is entirely pointless posting so-called evidence about people whose very exsistance is highly dubious. I think you ought to provide proof that these so-called tribes existed in the first place. And by proof, I mean sources outside of the BOM.

I've already brought up the Works of Ixtlilxochitl. Is that outside enough for you?

(Setting aside the fact that your entire argument is circular, of course.)

 

[yossarian22]

I've already brought up the Works of Ixtlilxochitl. Is that outside enough for you?

Not to get caught in the crossfire, but that's hardly compelling evidence.

 

[Sola'lor]

Not to get caught in the crossfire, but that's hardly compelling evidence.

Of course it's your personal interpretation wether or not it is compelling or not. But then again that's what everything boils down to, is our own personal interpretation.

 

[Melissa G]

I've already brought up the Works of Ixtlilxochitl. Is that outside enough for you?

(Setting aside the fact that your entire argument is circular, of course.)

I fail to see how you can concievably cite that as evidence. I'd like sources from the Middle East, the point of origin for the so-called lost tribes.

Melissa

 

[DeepShadow]

Not to get caught in the crossfire, but that's hardly compelling evidence.

What do you find un-compelling about it? It's no smoking gun, sure, but the Book of Mormon and Works of Ixtlilxochitl agree on over fifteen separate points, such as the year the Nephites and Lamanites split into their two camps. What are the chances of picking this year out of thin air? With each additional data point decreasing the likelihood of coincidence exponentially, this is a very robust example of the data that supports the Book of Mormon.

At any rate, it seems a perfectly adequate answer to Melissa, who wanted confirmation from outside the BoM that these tribes might have existed. This thread is about DNA, so I could have just dismissed her request for any number of reasons, but I wanted to address the issue as long as I could keep it close to the topic.

 

[DeepShadow]

I fail to see how you can concievably cite that as evidence.

Geez, at least I cited my source, which is more that you've done.

I'd like sources from the Middle East, the point of origin for the so-called lost tribes.

So...you want evidence that a dozen or so people left Jerusalem during a time of political turmoil?

None of these tribes existed as "tribes" in the Old World, according the Book of Mormon. They were a single family--albeit an extended family--before they arrived in America. Thus, you'd find no mention of Lamanites in the Old World, because they hadn't been formed yet.

That's why I gave you evidence of their having formed in the place where the Book of Mormon says they formed--in America. You scoff at the data, but have nothing with which to rebut it: the writings of an Aztec prince confirm the existence of these tribes in America. The most DNA evidence supports the Book of Mormon hypothesis.

And I might as well repeat my request for sources on your professor friend.

 

[yossarian22]

What do you find un-compelling about it? It's no smoking gun, sure, but the Book of Mormon and Works of Ixtlilxochitl agree on over fifteen separate points, such as the year the Nephites and Lamanites split into their two camps. What are the chances of picking this year out of thin air? With each additional data point decreasing the likelihood of coincidence exponentially, this is a very robust example of the data that supports the Book of Mormon.

What I find uncompelling is the very nature of the Works of Ixtlilxochitl.

At any rate, it seems a perfectly adequate answer to Melissa, who wanted confirmation from outside the BoM that these tribes might have existed. This thread is about DNA, so I could have just dismissed her request for any number of reasons, but I wanted to address the issue as long as I could keep it close to the topic.

It addresses her request perfectly, but that hardly makes it compelling.

 

[DeepShadow]

What I find uncompelling is the very nature of the Works of Ixtlilxochitl.

Please be more specific.

 

[yossarian22]

Please be more specific.

I assume we are talking about the works Fernando Ixtlilxochitl right?
It has an extremely heavy cultural bias running throughout the entire thing.
I only remember this because one of my professors chewed a guy out on it because it was his only source for some evidence used in an essay.
If I recall correctly, the entire work has heavy Christian influences which are unsupported by similar works. While this is all I remember off hand, it certainly prevents this from being strong evidence due to the cultural bias. While it is evidence, it shouldn't be used as the sole piece of supporting evidence.

 

[DeepShadow]

I assume we are talking about the works Fernando Ixtlilxochitl right?
It has an extremely heavy cultural bias running throughout the entire thing.
I only remember this because one of my professors chewed a guy out on it because it was his only source for some evidence used in an essay.
If I recall correctly, the entire work has heavy Christian influences which are unsupported by similar works. While this is all I remember off hand, it certainly prevents this from being strong evidence due to the cultural bias. While it is evidence, it shouldn't be used as the sole piece of supporting evidence.

I totally agree, except for areas where Christian influence would not make a difference. Do you think a Christian influence would cause Ixtlilxochitl to misremember dates? I've tried to avoid the areas that were compromised by exposure to Christian culture, so if you can explain how the dates and tribal splits were influenced by Christianity, I'll stop citing it.

 

[DeepShadow]

More DNA evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon:

[FONT=Geneva,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Brown et al. (1998) demonstrated that Europeans assigned to haplogroup X lack a mutation at np 16213 in the HVSI [hypervariable segment I] that all Native Americans exhibit. However, the larger sample size of individuals assigned to haplogroup X in the present study reveals that a substantial number of Native Americans in multiple geographic regions also lack the np 16213G mutation and therefore have haplotypes identical to those of European (Brown et al. 1998) and Asian (Derenko et al. 2001) members of haplogroup X. [/SIZE][/FONT]​

 

[DeepShadow]

And more, from Reidla (2003).

The results of this study point to the following conclusions. First, haplogroup X variation is completely captured by two ancient clades that display distinctive phylogeographic patterns--X1 is largely restricted to North and East Africa, whereas X2 is spread widely throughout West Eurasia. Second, it is apparent that the Native American haplogroup X mtDNAs derive from X2 by a unique combination of five mutations. Third, the few Altaian (Derenko et al. 2001) and Siberian haplogroup X lineages are not related to the Native American cluster, and they are more likely explained by recent gene flow from Europe or from West Asia.

Guess it pays to keep up with the studies in DNA, and not just take the earliest ones.

 

[yossarian22]

I totally agree, except for areas where Christian influence would not make a difference. Do you think a Christian influence would cause Ixtlilxochitl to misremember dates? I've tried to avoid the areas that were compromised by exposure to Christian culture, so if you can explain how the dates and tribal splits were influenced by Christianity, I'll stop citing it.

I'm not saying that you should stop citing it, just that you should support that text with more evidence. the obvious cultural spin necessitates it. You did supply other evidence though, so that's good enough for me.

 

[Autodidact]

Deep:
I'm not strong on genetics, and don't know a haplogroup from a hula hoop, but isn't the idea that some American Indians show traces of European ancestry, because Europeans immigrated here starting in the 16th century, but none show any traces of Middle Eastern ancestry? So any genetic trace of European ancestry doesn't strengthen your case.

 

[DeepShadow]

Actually, the studies all claim that haplogroup X arrived here looonng before Columbus.

But in other studies, what you point out is certainly a problem: could crucial DNA evidence be thrown out as post-Columbian contamination? There's a serious danger there, especially now that we know about Haplogroup X.

 

[Melissa G]

You arguement is non-starter if you can't prove from Independent sources that these Lammanites, Jareldites and lol, Mulketites existed in the first place. This thread is a total and utter waste of time !

Melissa G

 

[DeepShadow]

Hey, everyone, let's beg the original question AGAIN! It's like a merry-go-round! Whee! Go faster!

 

[Sola'lor]

On topic.......off topic.
On topic......off topic.
On topic.....off topic.
On topic....off topic.
On topic...off topic.
On topic..off topic.
On topicoff topic.
On top.. off top..
O.. t.. o.. t..
ot ot otototo

Wheeee!!! I'm dizzy.

 

[Autodidact]

Actually, the studies all claim that haplogroup X arrived here looonng before Columbus.

Please provide support.

But in other studies, what you point out is certainly a problem: could crucial DNA evidence be thrown out as post-Columbian contamination? There's a serious danger there, especially now that we know about Haplogroup X.[/quote]

As I said, what you don't have is any genetic connection between Indians and Semites. Ergo, no Lammanites etc.

 

[DeepShadow]

For source info about Haplogroup X, check out statements by Virginia Morell in Science magazine in 1988: Anthropologists have long assumed that the first Americans, who crossed into North America by way of the Bering Strait, were originally of Asian stock. But recently they have been puzzled by surprising features on a handful of ancient American skeletons, including the controversial one known as Kennewick Man--features that resemble those of Europeans rather than Asians (Science, 10 April 1998, p. 190). Now a new genetic study may link Native Americans and people of Europe and the Middle East, offering tantalizing support to a controversial theory that a band of people who originally lived in Europe or Asia Minor were among the continent's first settlers.

The above, in bold, is is the conclusion of a peer-reviewed geneticist. So far, the only rebuttals have been Melissa's begging the question and Autodidact saying she doesn't understand genetics.

Is this really so hard to understand, Autodidact? We have here a peer-reviewed geneticist saying there's a gentic link between Europe/Asia Minor and the original settlers of the Americas. Do you get that part?