New Genetic Research Findings: not very good news for the Mormon religion

[ParkerD]

It is no surprise to me that the opening I provided with the comment I made has brought a rejoinder. I am not offended at all. Nor do I consider God to be a “trickster”. He merely has created or allowed the conditions wherein His children can choose for themselves exactly what they want, and bring it into their lives. When we make new choices, He allows that, too, and offers a Savior when we perceive that we need help. I’m thankful most of all for that.

 

[why_me]

Yep, but that isn’t the case, now, is it? We can play the “what if” game until the end of the world, and I suspect a lot of Mormons will be doing just that, at which point they may be in for a big surprise.

Yep, and the existence of god would be proved and we can all be good. No need for faith or doubt. No need to question. Just believe because god exists and he has been proven. The world becomes mormon and the catholic church falls along with other churches.

But god does not work that way. Faith will always be a part of god’s plan along with doubt.

Now critics love to separate something from the whole of mormonism and say Hey! look at this?? But taken within the whole the mormon church has quite a story to tell and difficult to disprove.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I’m sorry Parker, but I’m a bit confused:

Ricko,
Whenever I come across such an article as was linked here, I am very interested in reading it. I don’t consider them “debunking” at all–rather, the opposite. (That would be because I don’t consider Carbon-14 dating to be very accurate at all.)

Even if we were to humor your opinion, how does that say anything about DNA sequencing and biogeography?

Now I really do hate derailing threads, but an even bigger pet peeve of mine is the propagation of myths about science, including but not limited to the erroneous claim that radiometric dating it inaccurate. From your other posts you seem like an honest guy with an noble character so I in no way mean to imply that you’re lying or attempting to deceive people.

Here’s some information that might be interesting to you:

• The nuclides of radioactive isotopes that do not decay via electron capture (including Carbon-14) have been shown to have relatively constant decay rates (arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146%2Fannurev.ns.22.120172.001121) (nature.com/nature/journal/v264/n5584/full/264340a0.html)
• Decay rates are due solely to nuclear properties and are independent of temperature, electricity, magnetism, chemical composition (or environment), and pressure (math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/decay_rates.html).
• When nuclear chemists are asked to date an object or organic remains, very rarely is only one method utilized, many a times utilizing up to 7 radiometric dating tests all of which lead to relatively agreeable conclusions (Dalrymple, G. B. (1991). The Age of the Earth. Page 87. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.) This is especially the case in areas that have localized volcanism which cause an increased C14 concentration but does not effect the decay rate.

I merely think science is doing its best to understand earth’s history but doesn’t have all of the pieces of the puzzle, and the assumptions of steadily occurring Carbon-14 dating processes are assumptions that lead to a lot of erroneous conclusions.

Which erroneous calculations would those be?

The Book of Mormon talks of tremendous earthquakes, uplifts, depressions, volcanoes, and land mass changes in 34 AD on these continents of the Americas. I think those geological changes actually happened at that time, and that Carbon-14 dating could not possibly predict mathematically or geologically the scientific impact of those forces and releases of internal energy from within the earth.

Again, I fail to see how the accuracy of C14 dating is at all relevant.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Also, this may be of interest to anyone who doubts the accuracy of radiometric dating:

“Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective” by Dr. Roger Wiens
asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html

I had never before thought of this, but apparently there’s cosmological evidence of the stability of decay rates:

" …] Scientists have now used a “time machine” to prove that the half-lives of radioactive species were the same millions of years ago. This time machine does not allow people to actually go back in time, but it does allow scientists to observe ancient events from a long way away. The time machine is called the telescope. Because God’s universe is so large, images from distant events take a long time to get to us. Telescopes allow us to see supernovae (exploding stars) at distances so vast that the pictures take hundreds of thousands to millions of years to arrive at the Earth. So the events we see today actually occurred hundreds of thousands to millions of years ago. And what do we see when we look back in time? Much of the light following a supernova blast is powered by newly created radioactive parents. So we observe radiometric decay in the supernova light. The half-lives of decays occurring hundreds of thousands of years ago are thus carefully recorded! These half-lives completely agree with the half-lives measured from decays occurring today. We must conclude that all evidence points towards unchanging radioactive half-lives."

Indeed, that nuclide half-lives are constant is not merely an “assumption”.

 

[zerinus]

I’m sorry Parker, but I’m a bit confused:

Even if we were to humor your opinion, how does that say anything about DNA sequencing and biogeography?

Now I really do hate derailing threads, but an even bigger pet peeve of mine is the propagation of myths about science, including but not limited to the erroneous claim that radiometric dating it inaccurate. From your other posts you seem like an honest guy with an noble character so I in no way mean to imply that you’re lying or attempting to deceive people.

Here’s some information that might be interesting to you:

• The nuclides of radioactive isotopes that do not decay via electron capture (including Carbon-14) have been shown to have relatively constant decay rates (arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146%2Fannurev.ns.22.120172.001121) (nature.com/nature/journal/v264/n5584/full/264340a0.html)
• Decay rates are due solely to nuclear properties and are independent of temperature, electricity, magnetism, chemical composition (or environment), and pressure (math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/decay_rates.html).
• When nuclear chemists are asked to date an object or organic remains, very rarely is only one method utilized, many a times utilizing up to 7 radiometric dating tests all of which lead to relatively agreeable conclusions (Dalrymple, G. B. (1991). The Age of the Earth. Page 87. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.) This is especially the case in areas that have localized volcanism which cause an increased C14 concentration but does not effect the decay rate.

Which erroneous calculations would those be?

Again, I fail to see how the accuracy of C14 dating is at all relevant.

Thank you for your interesting comments. The issue of archeological discoveries or DNA research with regards to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon in my opinion bypasses such considerations, because they deal with matters of faith rather than science; and often the same considerations if applied to the Bible would equally invalidate the Bible. But my faith in the Book of Mormon, like my faith in the Bible, is a faith issue; and just as such considerations would not shake my faith in the Bible, it would not shake my faith in the Book of Mormon either. I have already discussed these subjects in two Blog posts on archaeology and DNA that you can read here and here.

zerinus

 

[ricko]

Thank you for your interesting comments. The issue of archeological discoveries or DNA research with regards to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon in my opinion bypasses such considerations, because they deal with matters of faith rather than science; and often the same considerations if applied to the Bible would equally invalidate the Bible. But my faith in the Book of Mormon, like my faith in the Bible, is a faith issue; and just as such considerations would not shake my faith in the Bible, it would not shake my faith in the Book of Mormon either. I have already discussed these subjects in two Blog posts on archaeology and DNA that you can read here and here.

zerinus

I think you have summed up the main problem with Mormons. You are not unlike the Pharisees who paraded their “holiness” before everyone. Christ said to listen to them but not to be like them. You have great faith but you have no reason whatsover. You neglect to use some of the very resources, like reasoning, that God gave you thinking that you only need faith. It’s been drilled into your heads so much you can no longer accept the truth of evidence. And all the while you are thinking, “look at me, I have faith and they have none”.

“Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart the desire to know the truth — in a word, to know himself — so that by knowing and loving God, men and women can come to the fullness of the truth about themselves”
Pope John Paul II

 

[ParkerD]

cm85,
I read one of the articles since I didn’t have a subscription to the other sites. Thanks. I liked the emphasis on multiple dating methods to arrive at independent results to allow comparison.

I suppose that I will remain a sceptic about the dating of the dispersion of humankind to 12,000 years ago or more, although science arrives at this firm conclusion. I also will remain a sceptic about an isolated population group in northern Asia (isolated completely from other groups for 2,000 years) crossing Beringia, dispersing throughout the American continents, but only going back to the fringe of Beringia. It may seem completely logical to you, but not to me–sorry. I don’t get the impression from several recent sources of reading I’ve done that science has arrived at a firm definitive all-inclusive conclusion about the ancestral origins of every single person with genetic origins in the Americas.

As far as the age of rocks in the earth, I have no problem with them being over 4 billion years old.

 

[Jerusha]

Parker, a firm definitive all-inclusive conclusion about the ancestral origins of every single person with genetic origins in the Americas is impossible, given the level of mixing. It might have been possible in 1492, but unless we can invent a time machine, as OSC once postulated, it is impossible.

 

[ibkc]

Parker, a firm definitive all-inclusive conclusion about the ancestral origins of every single person with genetic origins in the Americas is impossible, given the level of mixing.

However, we can rule out the idea of certain groups being in the Americas, based on statistical improbability by looking at the available evidence. If there were middle eastern Hebrews in the Americas in any significant number (that is, the numbers necessary to have allowed for the events described in the BoM), they left absolutely no genetic trace in the current population of native Americans. Everything else is completely irrelevant in light of that tiny little fact. The further fact that there is zero credible archeological evidence for these people and their claimed advanced, post-bronze-age civilization is just gravy.

 

[dianaiad]

I consider it a miracle, Parker, how you came to be “right-on” within the context of LDS culture.

Perhaps, Ricko, you have never read the BOM thoroughly. There are some good places in it, and not necessarily just what they copied out of the Bible.

IBKC, yes, the Mormon god is quite a bit of the trickster. It takes faith and mental agility to stay out of his clutches. As Parker demonstrates. And cerad just doesn’t get.

I just have a question for you, specifically, Jerusha.

In this thread you agreed that the native Americans were isolated, and agreed with the article that claims that they all came from one family group. Then, when asked ‘where they were’ all that time, you claim that they traveled, that there was two way traffic on the land bridge, and that they had interactions with the Vikings.

Could you explain how the concept of travel and interaction with other peoples equals ‘isolation?’

 

[ParkerD]

However, we can rule out the idea of certain groups being in the Americas, based on statistical improbability by looking at the available evidence. If there were middle eastern Hebrews in the Americas in any significant number (that is, the numbers necessary to have allowed for the events described in the BoM), they left absolutely no genetic trace in the current population of native Americans. Everything else is completely irrelevant in light of that tiny little fact. The further fact that there is zero credible archeological evidence for these people and their claimed advanced, post-bronze-age civilization is just gravy.

ibkc,
Here are some verses from the Bible:
Genesis 46:20 ¶ And unto Joseph in the land of Egypt were born Manasseh and Ephraim, which Asenath the daughter of Poti-pherah priest of On bare unto him.
1 Chronicles 7:14 ¶ The sons of Manasseh; Ashriel, whom she bare: (but his concubine the Aramitess bare Machir the father of Gilead:

I suppose that you realize that both Joseph and Manasseh married outside of the Hebrew culture. The DNA of their descendants (especially the maternal DNA line which seems to be the most traceable from what I’ve read) would carry the DNA of these mothers, no?

But you’re saying I should be surprised that the DNA of any potential descendants of those mothers may not match the DNA of currently known Middle Eastern Hebrews or people known to have had origins with ancestors of Middle Eastern Hebrews? I’m not only not surprised, but I would expect that to be the case!

 

[Jerusha]

Could you explain how the concept of travel and interaction with other peoples equals ‘isolation?’

You are falling to the black and white thinking that is so typical of people of your cultural heritage.

Current evidence indicates very limited interaction. Points of contact were Siberia in ancient times, possibly West Africa in ancient times. The Norse in NE America in recent times, Chinese sailors in recent times, and possibly the Polynesian masters of the sea in recent times. Period, end. That is ALL. And only one story even partially matches that of the BOM-- the Vikings/Norse.

As for only one group of people populating the Americas, I say that should not be a definitive statement. The mixing of successive groups who were originally related can explain the homogeniety. There is still diveristy.