Mormons: DNA Shows that Native North Americans were Never Jewish. What is your Response to This?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As I just explained to Jose, if you were to go to Germany today, you would call the people you came into contact with there "Germans." Well, maybe they wouldn't be Germans at all. Maybe they'd be Austrians or Swiss. It's true that even today, we LDS use the term "Lamanite" in a very general sense to mean "Native Americans." Technically, we're wrong in doing so, but we're doing nothing different than you'd be doing by referring to a person whose grandparents were Austrian but whose family had migrated to Germany a couple of generations ago as "German." Does that make sense? (I'd say your second explanation is reasonably accurate.)

Heh... I'd say that "Lamanite" isn't much less accurate than "Indian".

Well, here's the potential problem I see with your explanation: when you explain the lack of mitochondrial DNA evidence by arguing that the newly-arrived Jews would have interbred with native women, this still leaves the issue of Y-chromosomal DNA.

For an analogous situation, take Britain: apparently, a situation similar to what you describe happened when the Picts and Celts were supplanted by the Saxons. The invading Saxons were almost exclusively male, so they had little to no impact on the frequency distribution of mitochondrial DNA, but they had a major impact on Y-chromosomal DNA.

Actually, when it comes to the Celts, the article I linked to points out that the bulk of Celtic DNA in Britain can be traced to a single man. Here, we're talking about at least two men, whose ancestors were supposed to have gone on to found a great civilization. We should expect to see evidence of this in the Y chromosomes of their descendants.

Basically, I think it's a sliding scale: the implication of reducing our expectations for mitochondrial DNA evidence is that it increases our expectation for Y-chromosomal evidence.

Now... I don't know what the Y-chromosomal DNA evidence says about this, so I don't know whether it's an actual problem or just a potential one.

 

[Autodidact]

I was talking about after that. Nephi and his brothers married Ishmael's daughters and (presumably) had a bunch of kids. Who did these kids, who were all first cousins, marry?

You mean in the fictional BoM? Each other.

I'm not sure who's said this, but I don't think it's relevant to the OP. Is there positive genetic evidence that demonstrates that Native Americans weren't descended from Jews?

There is strong affirmative evidence that Native Americans are descended from people from Siberia, and only that group. To my knowledge, Jews did not enter Siberia until after the period described in the BoM.

I put long odds on this actually happening myself, but so far, I haven't actually seen anything like this presented in this thread.


Of course not. But it's not positive evidence they aren't either, and this thread is about positive evidence against the idea, not a lack of evidence for it.


Let's set that aside for the moment; how about the claim in the title of the thread?



This seems to me to be quite clearly worded, so we should be able to have an intelligent discussion about whether or not it's true. Once we've decided one way or the other, then we can deal with the implications for Mormon theology. Doing things in the opposite order is kinda putting the cart before the horse.


Does it? Exactly how does science show it's false?[/quote]

 

[Jose Fly]

There were only a couple of dozen or so people who arrived here with Lehi. There would have been a lot of intermarriage right at first, but neither the Nephite nor the Lamanite nations would have grown to be as large as they ultimately became had there not been intermarriage fairly early on.

If you're going to deviate from your own scriptures, just say so and we can be done with this.

Just a educated guess, I suppose. Do the names M. Russell Ballard, L. Tom Perry and Dallin H. Oaks mean anything to you? (I meant without googling them, Jose.)

I know the first one, but the others I had to Google (GASP).

You seem to think we consider our prophets to be infallible if not omnipotent. That isn't the case and it never has been, not even in Joseph Smith's day.

So if there's no standard of accuracy, what exactly differentiates a "prophet" from anyone else?

Okay, well this tells me you clearly don't understand after all. It's not about the female descendants who survive today at all.

No, I understand, I simply mis-spoke. If the female Lamanites had any surviving descendants, we would expect to see evidence of their mtDNA in those descendants.

Neither Joseph nor Brigham were alive a couple of generations ago.

Brigham Young died in 1877, 133 years ago. That's ~4 generations. Joseph Smith about 5 generations.

That aside, why don't you explain to me just how one would be able to so easily identify their unique genetic markers.

Seriously? If the Native Americans during those times were indeed Lamanites, as both Joseph Smith/the Mormon god and Brigham Young very clearly stated, the distinct genetic markers (e.g. microsats, SNP's, CNV's) unique to that group are not going to be eliminated in a mere 4-5 generations.

How do you think we're able to determine that Native Americans are descended from Asian/Siberian populations thousands of years ago? If we can tell ancestry from thousands and tens of thousands of years ago, why wouldn't we be able to tell from just 130?

If Lehi's group had been the only people to be living on the American continent, or had even grown to be a fairly large group before intermarrying, we could undoubtedly expect to see some genetic traces of their lineage, but they weren't, and so we don't.

Again, if you're going to abandon your own scriptures, just say so and we can be done.

No, it wasn't "wrong," but it may be misleading, at least the way you're interpreting it.

Right...so "Lamanite" can mean whatever one wants, depending on what you need it to mean at the time. When needed, it can refer to ancient Israelites who came to N. America, built enormous civilizations, "covered the face of the earth", but left absolutely no trace of themselves....or it can mean "Native Americans" without any link to the ancient Israelites at all.

How convenient.

But I'm curious though; why would the LDS use the term "Lamanite" to refer to Native Americans if they aren't related to the ancient Israelites of LDS lore?

I'm not the slightest bit surprised. I'd be surprised, on the other hand, if they did.

Do you not see how a non-Mormon would find that strange? This group founded a civilization that--according to the Book of Mormon--"covered the face of the earth", yet you would be surprised to find any trace of them? I mean...we find genetic, historical, linguistic, and archeological traces of civilizations that are quite small. Surely one that "covered the face of the earth" a few thousand years ago would be obvious. Heck, a quick browse of the scientific literature shows that finding traces of ancient heritage from small populations is hardly uncommon.

You need to do a bit more research before you make a statement you cannot substantiate.

LOL! First, as Auto showed, your representation of the sample size was a bit off (12,000 not 300). Second....meh, never mind.

 

[Jose Fly]

Now... I don't know what the Y-chromosomal DNA evidence says about this, so I don't know whether it's an actual problem or just a potential one.

Same thing all the other genetic data says...there's zero evidence of a Jewish ancestry for Native Americans.

CLICK HERE

 

[Autodidact]

It doesn't matter what genetic marker you look for, whether from female ancestors (mtDNA) or y-markers or blood groups or anything else that's been looked at. Every kind of marker that geneticists look at, they find the same, consistent result: Siberia.

No study has ever found evidence of semitic descent. That is, no study by a scientist just looking for the answer, as opposed to a Mormon apologists grasping at straws.

There are disputes about how often, and when, and even by what route, but no dispute among geneticists who study the issue about where they come from.

This is what Katzpur is calling not enough information, a draw between two sides of a dispute.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It doesn't matter what genetic marker you look for, whether from female ancestors (mtDNA) or y-markers or blood groups or anything else that's been looked at. Every kind of marker that geneticists look at, they find the same, consistent result: Siberia.

No study has ever found evidence of semitic descent. That is, no study by a scientist just looking for the answer, as opposed to a Mormon apologists grasping at straws.

But not having evidence of semitic descent is different from having evidence disproving semitic descent. You see the distinction, right?

 

[Autodidact]

But not having evidence of semitic descent is different from having evidence disproving semitic descent. You see the distinction, right?

We have evidence of Siberian descent. We have no evidence of Semitic descent. Nor do we have mysterious unexplained markers requiring non-Siberian descent. If there were Semitic descent, we would expect to see markers which we do not. Taken together, this is evidence of non-Semitic, Siberian descent.

 

[Jose Fly]

But not having evidence of semitic descent is different from having evidence disproving semitic descent. You see the distinction, right?

The two are the same. Having all the genetic data point to a single general conclusion (Siberian) is how you disprove semitic descent.

 

[Sententia]

Sigh.

Ok. So we're talking about DNA evidence. None of the DNA evidence we have supports the claim made in the Book of Mormon.

Thus... Can we create a contrived situation where our story could still be true despite not having DNA evidence.

Sure. In addition DNA evidence does not show I was alive during that time frame and since I am a male why would you expect it to. Therefore you can not say I was not alive during that time and therefore I was. (I've been around for a long, long year)

Shall we just see who can post the most links, Balance?

No but many of those points are directly addressed in that link.

In my opinion, based on what I've actually read and taken the time to understand (which is a huge component), there is simply too little data for either side to try to prove conclusively that their position is correct. I have concluded that we really should not expect to find a genetic link between the Nephites and the 21st century Native Americans, and I say that based upon the factors I mentioned in my post #10. To be perfectly honest, I kind of doubt that most of the posters on RF have much more background in genetics than I do.

Sure, but what points made you come to this conclusion? Lets try a little detail for the purposes of being constructive.

For the sake of closure, lets get past the introduction change in the book of mormon. Past editions of that page say all of the people chronicled in the book "were destroyed, except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." The new introduction reads much the same, but says the Lamanites "are among the ancestors of the American Indians." -1

The claim originally made was proven false. Thus because of scientific data and not prophesy the church changed the introduction. This is a big deal is it not? Until 2006 did most mormons believe the original claim? Was it not taught, lectured and accepted as truth?

The new claim made is that they are only among the ancestors. To be fair we have to examine the new claim. In doing so we find no evidence to support it.

However more interesting to me is your initial response.

How much do you know about Mitochondrial DNA, haplogroups and how they disapear through genetic drift, the founder effect, and how population bottlenecks work? Have you ever read up on the deCODE Project in Iceland, which is an excellent example of the results of a population bottleneck in completely obliterating an entire genetic line? If you can discuss your position and address the issues raised by these factors, I'd be happy to address the topic with you. Otherwise, it would be a complete waste of my time.

Later we find out that you are not an expert on these matters either. You state most people are not experts and know very little... But your tone changes...

Why on earth would you expect to see it reflected in their genetics? That's just not the kind of question I'd expect to hear from someone with a background like you say you have.

That caused me to tilt my head quizzically at what you were driving at. This seems like an argument from authority and you just clearly established you are not an authority. (Censorship complaint: really **** my head is censored? I will try tilt, see if it works. )

Prior to this you stated:

Let's say you have a man from Italy who has five daughters. How many of those daughters would have his mtDNA? None. Let's say those five daughters give him 30 grandchildren. If that man had married an African woman, every single one of his grandchildren would be classified as African according to their mtDNA. There would not be a single solitary one who would have his mtDNA.

mtDNA: Mitochondrial DNA. None is most likely correct, yes? However not necessarily. Reproduction is messy and current evidence supports that sometimes males do pass on mtDNA. (Although rare) Regardless there is no evidence that American Indians have ever had mtDNA derived from ye olde middle east. ( It is possible it was bred out randomly... but unlikely. I will concede that by current standards we learn little of your man from italy... (or more accurately are extremely unlikely to learn anything) However we would look to Y-chromosome studies and in native americans we still don't find any evidence. However my guess is you read FAIR like I do and you already know this.

Thus you go to iceland. A very unique and intriguing situation. One that could be the subject of many months of study. To immediately state that the situation described in the Book of Mormon is akin to the situation presented in Iceland is very revisionist. I have friends who are mormons who have argued to me that when Lehi arrived... no one else was here. Has the argument changed? Absolutely. But I remember the original arguments at length. (They are good memories, I love debating.)

Today's argument seems to discount the introduction as nothing more then what it is... An introduction. When the mormons got to america it was already populated by native americans. They reproduced here and there but eventually not enough and their dna disappeared. It was a mere side show of american history and in order to dispute that you would need a COMPLETE record of all DNA so you just have to rely on faith and prayers to god that what the BoM says is true.

An effective argument that argues DNA evidence useless to discount the facts of the BoM. This leaves those that believe in the historical accuracy of the BoM to find other sources to validate their beliefs. We do know though that no DNA evidence currently supports any of the claims made in the BoM and the Mormon's have changed their tune a bit so that they can shrug their shoulders and say so... Doesn't mean anything and then go on to describe a situation where they can stand by their beliefs.

But belief is really what it is. Its about belief and faith.

An odd way to present your argument. However... It does bring to mind an age old debate. What if the BoM is historically false and nothing in it is true. Does it matter? Does its message mean the same thing to you regardless of this? What if it is allegorical? A lot of christians I know consider Genesis and many other parts of the bible to be fiction but still say the message and the lessons it teaches are what is important. Does the same hold true for the BoM or its historical accuracy so vehemently defended because if it wasn't true then the message falls apart?

 

[DeepShadow]

I'm not sure who's said this, but I don't think it's relevant to the OP. Is there positive genetic evidence that demonstrates that Native Americans weren't descended from Jews?

I put long odds on this actually happening myself, but so far, I haven't actually seen anything like this presented in this thread.

Agreed. Can we get some cited references?

Does it? Exactly how does science show it's false?

That's the tricky part, eh? My position since I joined the forums is that the Book of Mormon's claims are unfalsifiable, even unscientific, but also that too many people assume that those terms are synonymous with "false."

If something is unfalsifiable, that doesn't make it false, it makes it unprovable. All we really have here is not God of the Gaps, but a perfectly logical extension of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem: insofar as it is impossible to prove all true statements, some truths must be accepted without proof, or not accepted at all.

 

[Autodidact]

Agreed. Can we get some cited references?



That's the tricky part, eh? My position since I joined the forums is that the Book of Mormon's claims are unfalsifiable, even unscientific, but also that too many people assume that those terms are synonymous with "false."

If something is unfalsifiable, that doesn't make it false, it makes it unprovable. All we really have here is not God of the Gaps, but a perfectly logical extension of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem: insofar as it is impossible to prove all true statements, some truths must be accepted without proof, or not accepted at all.

I don't see how they're unfalsifiable. The BoM makes very specific claims about purported events that, had they actually happened, would have left ample evidence. Such evidence has not been found, falsifying the BoM.

Meanwhile, we have lots and lots and lots of evidence for what did happen in North America, and we know quite a lot about the people who actually lived here, where they came from, how they're related to each other, what languages they spoke, who their descendants are, where they lived, how they lived, what they ate, what tools they used, what kinds of houses they lived in, what crops they grew, and so forth. All of this evidence is consistent, and fits together into a picture that bears no resemblance to the BoM.

So at this point LDS proponents are reduced to:
(1) That BoM never said that. True, for 150 years we've been saying it says that, including our leaders who are supposed to be getting revelation directly from God, but they and we were mistaken. It actually says something completely different.
(2) We don't have enough information yet. Yes, we do.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I don't see how they're unfalsifiable. The BoM makes very specific claims about purported events that, had they actually happened, would have left ample evidence. Such evidence has not been found, falsifying the BoM.

Meanwhile, we have lots and lots and lots of evidence for what did happen in North America, and we know quite a lot about the people who actually lived here, where they came from, how they're related to each other, what languages they spoke, who their descendants are, where they lived, how they lived, what they ate, what tools they used, what kinds of houses they lived in, what crops they grew, and so forth. All of this evidence is consistent, and fits together into a picture that bears no resemblance to the BoM.

So at this point LDS proponents are reduced to:
(1) That BoM never said that. True, for 150 years we've been saying it says that, including our leaders who are supposed to be getting revelation directly from God, but they and we were mistaken. It actually says something completely different.
(2) We don't have enough information yet. Yes, we do.

I agree with you and touched on a lot of this in a few threads but as usual...would be apologetics step in a spin it....

 

[Beyondo]

I'll tell you what's really amusing. It's that people insist on arguing against a claim the Latter-day Saints aren't even making. Phrase the argument correctly and of course your're going to win. Just so that we're on the same page, we do NOT claim that "Native Americans are of Israelite origin." Our claim is that it is entirely possible that a small family from Israel could have arrived in America, to a continent that was already populated, leaving no genetic evidence of their existance 2600 years later. So if you can stop being amused long enough to respond to my post, I would like to hear your explanation of the process by which these DNA studies have concluded that the claim we are actually making (and not the one you seem to believe we're making) is false.

There seem to be some currently DNA validated descendants of some Hebrew tribes existing today but there is no validation that Mormons descended from any Israelite tribe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_Judaism

 

[DoctorAnswerMan]

Unless you respond to it by putting it on ignore.

How true. I know you, don't I? From another place a few years ago. Yes, I am certain. Obdulla Oblongata comes to mind. Anyway, be well!

 

[DoctorAnswerMan]

DNA evidence? Really? Do any of the world's religions have any DNA evidence for their beliefs? For that matter, do any of the world's Atheists have any DNA evidence for their beliefs? Do evolutionists actually have DNA to support their religion? Do Buddhists have DNA evidence for Gautama? Do Muslims have DNA of the 'Prophet'? However I am certain that somewhere in the vaults of the Vatican there exists vials of DNA samples of all the Apostles and of Jesus himself so that they may verify their Apostolic Succession...right?

 

[Father Heathen]

DNA evidence? Really? Do any of the world's religions have any DNA evidence for their beliefs? For that matter, do any of the world's Atheists have any DNA evidence for their beliefs? Do evolutionists actually have DNA to support their religion? Do Buddhists have DNA evidence for Gautama? Do Muslims have DNA of the 'Prophet'? However I am certain that somewhere in the vaults of the Vatican there exists vials of DNA samples of all the Apostles and of Jesus himself so that they may verify their Apostolic Succession...right?

Those analogies don't even make sense, since they have nothing to do with claims regarding racial ancestry. Also, what is the religion of "evolutionists"? Is the same religion of gravitationists? Many people of many different faiths accept the theory of evolution. But anyway evolution, being biology, obviously does have genetic evidence to support it.

 

[outhouse]

DNA evidence?

yes

Do evolutionists actually have DNA to support their religion?

thats not a religion

Do any of the world's religions have any DNA evidence for their beliefs?

myths do not need any dna evidence

 

[Autodidact]

How true. I know you, don't I? From another place a few years ago. Yes, I am certain. Obdulla Oblongata comes to mind. Anyway, be well!

Not sure. IIDB? (TomboyMom) T-Web (Gaytheist)?

 

[gerobbins]

Since Judisam is a religion how can DNA prove it otherwise?

 

[Caladan]

Since Judisam is a religion how can DNA prove it otherwise?

Do a more serious study. Jews are a nation, an ethnic group (ethnic groups) , and in some cases a group of religion.