New evidence linking Native Americans

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheIrishman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No. My position, is statements like “DNA has proven Joseph Smith to have lied”, or “the DNA evidence completely contradicts the Mormon position”, or “DNA has proven joe smith wrong”, are incorrect statements. I am making no claims that DNA science supports the truth claims of the BoM. I am expressly claiming that DNA science, as it stands today, pretty much has zero impact in the mormon debate whatsoever.
How does the fact that there is no DNA evidence to support BOM claims have zero impact on the Mormon debate? I believe they do have an impact. There is still lots to learn regarding the movement of human populations and their mixing, but so far there is nothing that remotely supports the claims of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon regarding the ancestry of Native Americans. This doesn’t mean that something absolutely won’t be found in the future; however, the fact that after all the research that has been done thus far has produced nothing to support the claims is telling. It is a big, gaping hole.

I would not say that Joseph Smith was a false prophet based solely on the lack of DNA evidence supporting his claims regarding Native American ancestry. It is just one item in a long list of evidence that Joseph Smith was a false prophet.
 
How does the fact that there is no DNA evidence to support BOM claims have zero impact on the Mormon debate? I believe they do have an impact. There is still lots to learn regarding the movement of human populations and their mixing, but so far there is nothing that remotely supports the claims of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon regarding the ancestry of Native Americans. This doesn’t mean that something absolutely won’t be found in the future; however, the fact that after all the research that has been done thus far has produced nothing to support the claims is telling. It is a big, gaping hole.

I would not say that Joseph Smith was a false prophet based solely on the lack of DNA evidence supporting his claims regarding Native American ancestry. It is just one item in a long list of evidence that Joseph Smith was a false prophet.
Indeed! While I’m nowhere near as qualified to speak about geology as I am about genetics, I find a striking similarity between what LDS apologists do with molecular biology and what “Creation Science” apologists do with geology. In hopes of finding geological evidence that there really was a global flood that would vindicate the story of Noah’s Ark they’ll point out the finding of marine fossils at the tops of high mountains but then entirely ignore (or demonize) the data that demonstrates these fossils to be dozens of millions of years older than these Creationists even believe the age of the Earth to be, or the data that shows the mountain to be far younger than the fossils!
 
I’d highly recommend reading my responses nonetheless as I believe they show those apologetic sources on which you’ve relied to have been acting in bad faith.
How so? None of the apologetic sources I’ve relied on have claimed anything other than I’m claiming.

Whenever a mormon says DNA science proves the BoM true, I argue with them as energetically as I’m arguing here in this thread.

Here are my apologetic sources:

The Book of Mormon and DNA Research - Essays from The FARMS Review and the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies

In The Problematic Role of DNA Testing in Unraveling Human History By John L. Sorenson, we read an imagined dialogue between a DNA scientist, and a wealthy person anxious to fund a study of “DNA and the Book of Mormon.” The donor goes away discouraged.

In A Few Thoughts from a Believing DNA Scientist by John M. Butler, he claims DNA science neither proves nor disproves the BoM, and the mormon question remains one of faith.

In Before DNA by John L. Sorenson and Matthew Roper, they “raise a set of issues that anyone should confront when thinking clearly and honestly about [DNA and the BoM]”

In Addressing Questions surrounding the Book of Mormon and DNA Research by John M. Butler, the author claims “As an active DNA researcher for the past thirteen years, I can affirm that we are uncovering new information with each passing year that gives us a better picture of the past and the present. But we must remember that that picture is in no way complete or comprehensive. Science can demonstrate that certain assumptions are unlikely, but it cannot prove that testimonies are false.”

In DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective by Michael F. Whiting, the author states “As someone who has spent a decade using DNA information to decipher the past, I recognize the tentative nature of all my conclusions, regardless of whether or not they have been based on DNA. There are some very good scientific reasons for why the Book of Mormon is neither easily corroborated nor refuted by DNA evidence, and current attempts to do so are based on dubious science.”

In Detecting Lehi’s Genetic Signature: Possible, Probable, or Not? by David A. McClellan, the author concludes “The general conclusion of this essay, therefore, is that although it may be possible to recover the genetic signature of a small migrating family from 2,600 years ago, it is not probable. But either way, it would not allow the story line of the Book of Mormon to be rejected because the absence of a genetic signature means absolutely nothing.”

In Who Are the Children of Lehi? by D. Jeffrey Meldrum and Trent D. Stephens, the author states “We probably will never find a genetic marker for the children of Lehi, for the children of Abraham, or even for the “Children of God.” Ultimately we are impressed by the realization that the fundamental question of the veracity of the claims of the Book of Mormon lies beyond the ken of modern DNA research.”

In Nephi’s Neighbors: Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations by Matthew Roper, the author advocates for the notion that BoM peoples a tiny population in an area already peopled, and DNA signatures would naturally be lost in such an environment. Lots of quotes from early church leaders in this one.

Swimming in the Gene Pool: Israelite Kinship Relations, Genes, and Genealogy by Matthew Roper, looks at genetic complications in thinking about Israelites, Jews, and Lehites.

Elusive Israel and the Numerical Dynamics of Population Mixing by Brian D. Stubbs, is a brief overview of the science at the time (all these articles are years old.)

Please show the bad faith?
 
Here are my apologetic sources:

The Book of Mormon and DNA Research - Essays from The FARMS Review and the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies

In The Problematic Role of DNA Testing in Unraveling Human History By John L. Sorenson, we read an imagined dialogue between a DNA scientist, and a wealthy person anxious to fund a study of “DNA and the Book of Mormon.” The donor goes away discouraged.

In A Few Thoughts from a Believing DNA Scientist by John M. Butler, he claims DNA science neither proves nor disproves the BoM, and the mormon question remains one of faith.

In Before DNA by John L. Sorenson and Matthew Roper, they “raise a set of issues that anyone should confront when thinking clearly and honestly about [DNA and the BoM]”

In Addressing Questions surrounding the Book of Mormon and DNA Research by John M. Butler, the author claims “As an active DNA researcher for the past thirteen years, I can affirm that we are uncovering new information with each passing year that gives us a better picture of the past and the present. But we must remember that that picture is in no way complete or comprehensive. Science can demonstrate that certain assumptions are unlikely, but it cannot prove that testimonies are false.”

In DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective by Michael F. Whiting, the author states “As someone who has spent a decade using DNA information to decipher the past, I recognize the tentative nature of all my conclusions, regardless of whether or not they have been based on DNA. There are some very good scientific reasons for why the Book of Mormon is neither easily corroborated nor refuted by DNA evidence, and current attempts to do so are based on dubious science.”

In Detecting Lehi’s Genetic Signature: Possible, Probable, or Not? by David A. McClellan, the author concludes “The general conclusion of this essay, therefore, is that although it may be possible to recover the genetic signature of a small migrating family from 2,600 years ago, it is not probable. But either way, it would not allow the story line of the Book of Mormon to be rejected because the absence of a genetic signature means absolutely nothing.”

In Who Are the Children of Lehi? by D. Jeffrey Meldrum and Trent D. Stephens, the author states “We probably will never find a genetic marker for the children of Lehi, for the children of Abraham, or even for the “Children of God.” Ultimately we are impressed by the realization that the fundamental question of the veracity of the claims of the Book of Mormon lies beyond the ken of modern DNA research.”

In Nephi’s Neighbors: Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations by Matthew Roper, the author advocates for the notion that BoM peoples a tiny population in an area already peopled, and DNA signatures would naturally be lost in such an environment. Lots of quotes from early church leaders in this one.

Swimming in the Gene Pool: Israelite Kinship Relations, Genes, and Genealogy by Matthew Roper, looks at genetic complications in thinking about Israelites, Jews, and Lehites.

Elusive Israel and the Numerical Dynamics of Population Mixing by Brian D. Stubbs, is a brief overview of the science at the time (all these articles are years old.)
These are all very cautiously spoken conclusions with which I have no qualms.
Please show the bad faith?
The bad faith arises in citing data in a manner to make it appear as if there is even scant evidence that supports the Book of Mormon when the actual cases of Semitic DNA in those papers all pertain to either migration from dozens of thousands of years before the Book of Mormon or post-Columbian admixture, and those very papers explicitly say as much.

When a person says something along the lines of “All the DNA evidence to date shows that Native Americans do not descend from Jews, but from East Asians” within the context of an argument about the Book of Mormon, it should be obvious that such a person is not making an exhaustive claim about the Amerindian genomes.

When the Mormon apologist’s rebuttal to such is to point to examples of a Semitic genetic signature among Amerindians that do not fit Book of Mormon chronology or that are due to post-Columbian European admixture, (s)he is acting in bad faith. (S)he is purposefully attempting to deceive by tossing around a red herring that doesn’t have one iota to do with the Book of Mormon.

In regards to your first post (which is the only post I really had in mind when making my response here), whoever gave you that laundry list of papers as evidence of Semitic genetic markers among Native Americans either didn’t read the papers themselves, or deceptively passed them off as if they have relevance to the discussion.
 
(Claiming victory? Naw, more like challenging LDS Inc to step up to the plate and show some credibility. 😃 )
 
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131120-science-native-american-people-migration-siberia-genetics/

What are your thoughts on this “new” discovery? Does it change your opinion on anything? Also, what questions does it leave open still?
The DNA argument never really interested me, and this article addresses a timeframe that significantly pre-dates the Jaredites. Joseph Smith wasn’t the only one to claim that Native Americans originated from Jerusalem (or that region).

Questions? Why absolutely no evidence in the Americas of a civilization that even slightly resembles the Nephites/Lamanites? Why no additional records of these peoples? And this obviously doesn’t address the multiple versions of the first vision, polygamy, revisionist history of the preisthood, evolution of the nature of God, the lies of early church leaders, racism, stealing peoples’ money, temple ceremonies based on masonry, adam/god theory, non-christian views on the nature of God/Christ, false translation of Egyptian funerary text, false prophecies, etc.

Even if there was proof that Native Americans descended from people from the Israelites, that would cover only 5% of the issues that the LDS church faces.
 
Your above comment about the timing is correct. But it certainly does call into question hundreds of posts made by you and others on this forum to “conclusively” reject the Book of Mormon. For instance this gem you wrote a couple of months ago:
Apparently, not so complete any more. Or this one from Stephen168: I guess DNA evidence may not prove it any more. Or this one from StevenVH: Again, not so complete. Or this one from Porknpie:Or this one from kimg901: I could go on, but will any of you admit that you were wrong in stating completely, conclusively that DNA evidence proved Joseph wrong? You may now provide your apologies…
Try to use a little bit of critical thinking here please. The evidence in the article is for human migrations c. 17000 years ago, which supports scientific fact. That of the paths humans took branching out from Africa. There is nothing in the article at all, zero, that supports the Book of Mormon narration of migration from Jerusalem 600 BC, via an ocean crossing on a ship. Human migrations through Siberia have nothing to do with the Book of Mormon.

DNA evidence of a migration less than 3000 years ago is what is required for your faith to be supported by facts. In other words, you are making a leap, with no evidence to support the leap. The assertion you are making is, there are people in the Americas, therefore the Book of Mormon is factually based because there are stories about people in the Book of Mormon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top