Themis wrote:The Lemba example is not about saying what exactly Lehi's group or the other groups DNA should look like, but that when we look at their claims which come to us through their oral tradition we see both cultural and DNA evidence to back it up. The Book of Mormon gives us even more information and yet has nothing to support it. This really does not bode well for it's claims.
Here’s my point, Themis:
Dr. Mark Thomas and colleagues reported: "In no case is there clear evidence of unbroken genetic continuity from early dispersal events to the present....Unfortunately, in many cases, it is not possible to infer the geographic origin of the founding mtDNAs within the different Jewish groups with any confidence."7 Dr. Shaye Cohen of Harvard University observed, "The authors are correct in saying the historical origins of most Jewish communities are unknown."8
The origin of Jewish DNA may not be ancient Israel circa 500 BC anyway. We simply don’t know. To make the assumption that we do know is nothing but dogmatic rhetoric. We don’t know. We can theorize and make assumptions, which has happened tons in this field, but that doesn’t mean a whole lot.
And regarding the Lemba:
The "Cohen Modal Haplotype," or CMH, is a genetic signature postulated to be inherited from Aaron Ha-Cohen, brother of Moses. This marker is believed to have originated approximately 3000 years ago, a suitable timeframe for a presumptive origin with the biblical Aaron. The CMH is present in approximately 45-55% of Ashkenazic and Sephardic Cohens, compared to 2-3% of non-Cohen Jews. It is also found in the Buba clan of the Lemba tribe of Zimbabwe, the Bnei Menashe of India, and in several non-Jewish populations, including Armenians, Kurds, Hungarians, and central and southern Italians.
The Book of Mormon account does not support Mr. Murphy's assertion that the CMH should have been present among the Lehites. We would not expect that small groups that left Israel without Cohens would carry the "Cohen modal haplotype." Lehi was a descendant of Joseph (1 Nephi 5:14). Mulek, son of Zedekiah, was a descendant of Judah. While the lineages of the Ishmael, Zoram, and the servants of Mulek are unknown, there is no textual evidence that Cohen priests were present among these groups. Had Cohens been present, it seems unlikely that Lehi and other non-Cohens could have officiated in ordinances like sacrifice that were confined to Levite Priests by the Mosaic Law. Cohens were specifically forbidden to intermarry with other Israelites, accounting for the high prevalence of the CMH in today's Jewish Cohens and its presence in only 2-3% of non-Cohen Jews even after an additional twenty-six centuries of intermixing. The presence of the CMH among diaspora Jewish groups with Cohens including the Lemba and Bnei Menashe, and its absence among Native Americans, is an expected finding fully consistent with the Book of Mormon story.
While he sharply criticizes traditional LDS teachings because of the lack of homology between modern Jewish and Native American mtDNA, Mr. Murphy inexplicably fails to disclose that the Lemba have virtually no mtDNA commonality with other Jewish groups. Dr. Himla Soodyall noted that "using mtDNA the Lemba were indistinguishable from other Bantu-speaking groups."12
I don’t see the Lemba as a good example on these grounds.
Don't confuse many non-scientist ideas about theory with the scientific understanding of theory.
Will do. Thanks again for the warning.
Some critics may assert things like some apologists do dogmatically, but I haven't seen this with SS. I think many say or think this just because they do not like what he has to say.
But the OP holds some dogmatic ideas itself. Thus I commented.
I think it is a fairly good critic of Book of Mormon claims. DNA should have already shown up that dates to the right time periods and from the right regions of the world (Middle East). That it hasn't shown up is evidence against the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Some may try to tell you absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This can be true in some cases, but not in others. Extinctions are a good example of a absence of evidence being evidence of absence.
I think that is a terrible dogmatic set of reasoning in regards to the DNA issue. There is no conclusive ideas about what Lehi and co DNA should be. If that is the case, then how can we possibly make the claim that it somehow is evidence against the Book of Mormon?
Based on the Book of Mormon narrative we should definitely see DNA show up that has it's origins in the middle east anciently. If it had this would be good evidence for the Book of Mormon claims. It may not prove it, but would go a long ways towards. I would be excited. I also think Buffalo shows that yes we do know what Lehi's DNA should look like. :)
What in the world is the DNA of the ancient Israelites that we should see among Native Americans? I think it takes some pretty big assumptions to define each ancient group and categorize it that they don’t match. We don’t even know what each groups’ DNA should be.