New Essay: Book of Mormon And DNA Studies

[_Ludd]

Actually we don't have to know anything about Lehite, Jaredite or Mulekite DNA to determine if there were foreign intrusions in the DNA of the indigenous populations at the time the immigrations were supposed to happen. If I understand Simon Southerton correctly, it is possible to ascertain if any foreign intrusions at all occurred. If none are present in the time frames claimed, it does not matter what Lehite DNA is supposed to look like anyways since no new DNA appeared in the local population at the correct time.

I don't have a dog in this race in terms of the alleged historcity of the Book of Mormon. As far as I'm concerned, the most serious "problems" with the Book of Mormon have nothing to do with DNA studies and population genetics. That said, I have been somewhat of a student of the scientific theories concerning the origins of the various populations of the Americas, and it is simply a fact that (especially in the most recent studies) the science is rapidly evolving. People who have no interest in "proving" the Book of Mormon are making arguments that contact between Europe, Asia, and the Americas was much more common in pre-Columbian times than was previously believed, and they are using DNA evidence to support their theories. Your statement that "no new DNA appeared in the local population at the correct time" is just not true. In fact, just the opposite is true: they are finding that there is evidence of extensive contact between Europe and the Americas, all throughout ancient times. The old theory about the Bering Straits being the only avenue of emigration into the Americas is being shown as entirely inadequate to explain the evidence. The Raghavan study published in Nature in November of last year is just the most recent study to underscore the increasing amount of evidence that the DNA picture of ancient America is not nearly as simple as most of the non-Mormon/ex-Mormon arguments would have one believe.

Bottom line: I think "President Newsroom's" latest entry in this essay series is actually quite balanced, and, on balance, very accurate in its claims that DNA studies don't have the ability to say much, if anything, about the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

[_Ludd]

Since the science of DNA is so inconclusive regarding this subject, the church needs to henceforth cease and desist any and all work in relation to posthumous ordinances and reject any and all genealogical work in which DNA was used to correlate genealogical records.

Likewise the leadership should cease to be moral cowards and denounce all state sanctioned executions since the science of DNA is ultimately unreliable.

This is silly. The point isn't that DNA evidence is entirely unreliable. It's that it can't tell us much about population dynamics over long periods of time. Sure, it is very valuable and very reliable when it comes to things that are known to have occurred recently (evidence of rape, parentage of children within a few generations, etc.) but because of the very reasons the church essay cites (bottleneck, founder effect, etc.) it isn't a reliable method of tracing populations over considerably longer periods of times (in the hundreds or thousands of years).

So argue against the Book of Mormon all you want. You have my blessing when it comes to demonstrating the numerous evidences that cast doubt on Joseph Smith's story of where the Book of Mormon came from, but using DNA evidence as a way to "prove" the Book of Mormon is not historical is, in my opinion, a really stupid way to go about things. It makes you look more "anti-science" than otherwise. The picture emerging from the latest studies is one that seems to suggest lots of contact between the "Old World" and the "New World" going clear back to Roman times and earlier.

[_Tobin]

Since the science of DNA is so inconclusive regarding this subject, the church needs to henceforth cease and desist any and all work in relation to posthumous ordinances and reject any and all genealogical work in which DNA was used to correlate genealogical records.

Likewise the leadership should cease to be moral cowards and denounce all state sanctioned executions since the science of DNA is ultimately unreliable.

This is silly. The point isn't that DNA evidence is entirely unreliable. It's that it can't tell us much about population dynamics over long periods of time. Sure, it is very valuable and very reliable when it comes to things that are known to have occurred recently (evidence of rape, parentage of children within a few generations, etc.) but because of the very reasons the church essay cites (bottleneck, founder effect, etc.) it isn't a reliable method of tracing populations over considerably longer periods of times (in the hundreds or thousands of years).

So argue against the Book of Mormon all you want. You have my blessing when it comes to demonstrating the numerous evidences that cast doubt on Joseph Smith's story of where the Book of Mormon came from, but using DNA evidence as a way to "prove" the Book of Mormon is not historical is, in my opinion, a really stupid way to go about things. It makes you look more "anti-science" than otherwise. The picture emerging from the latest studies is one that seems to suggest lots of contact between the "Old World" and the "New World" going clear back to Roman times and earlier.

I agree. It really is a stupid argument to use to go after the Book of Mormon claims (and I think very poorly of those that employ it). The greatest evidence (or lack of evidence actually) against the Book of Mormon is the missing plates. Nothing screams louder that the Book of Mormon is a fraud than that.

[_Jaybear]

So argue against the Book of Mormon all you want. You have my blessing when it comes to demonstrating the numerous evidences that cast doubt on Joseph Smith's story of where the Book of Mormon came from, but using DNA evidence as a way to "prove" the Book of Mormon is not historical is, in my opinion, a really stupid way to go about things. It makes you look more "anti-science" than otherwise. The picture emerging from the latest studies is one that seems to suggest lots of contact between the "Old World" and the "New World" going clear back to Roman times and earlier.

Anti-science?

The Book of Mormon was written by someone who believed, literally, that God flooded the world about 4,000 years ago, and the only human survivors floated away safely to the Mideast on a ark.

The Book of Mormon offered an explanation to those people who believed in the flood, how and when the native Americans came to the new world.

The reason there is no mention of the others in the Book of Mormon, is because the existence of native Americans is incongruent with the story of the global flood.

I am truly puzzled that anyone who has come to accept the fact that homo sapiens have walked this planet for 200,000 years, and that story of the global flood is a religious myth, can still cling to the possibility that Smith's claims about the origin of the Book of Mormon have any basis in fact.

[Guest]

I am truly puzzled that anyone who has come to accept the fact that homo sapiens have walked this planet for 200,000 years, and that story of the global flood is a religious myth, can still cling to the possibility that Smith's claims about the origin of the Book of Mormon have any basis in fact.

Because the Book of Mormon may not be any of the things you claim it is. A small group of human-beings from the Middle-east could have travelled here and set up a small colony. They may have had little to no contact with the larger civilizations already here and their descendants could now be part of the larger mixed population of Native Americans. Nothing Simon (or the rest of his pet bozos) have presented show that is untrue.

[_Fence Sitter]

I don't have a dog in this race in terms of the alleged historcity of the Book of Mormon. As far as I'm concerned, the most serious "problems" with the Book of Mormon have nothing to do with DNA studies and population genetics. That said, I have been somewhat of a student of the scientific theories concerning the origins of the various populations of the Americas, and it is simply a fact that (especially in the most recent studies) the science is rapidly evolving. People who have no interest in "proving" the Book of Mormon are making arguments that contact between Europe, Asia, and the Americas was much more common in pre-Columbian times than was previously believed, and they are using DNA evidence to support their theories. Your statement that "no new DNA appeared in the local population at the correct time" is just not true. In fact, just the opposite is true: they are finding that there is evidence of extensive contact between Europe and the Americas, all throughout ancient times. The old theory about the Bering Straits being the only avenue of emigration into the Americas is being shown as entirely inadequate to explain the evidence. The Raghavan study published in Nature in November of last year is just the most recent study to underscore the increasing amount of evidence that the DNA picture of ancient America is not nearly as simple as most of the non-Mormon/ex-Mormon arguments would have one believe.

Bottom line: I think "President Newsroom's" latest entry in this essay series is actually quite balanced, and, on balance, very accurate in its claims that DNA studies don't have the ability to say much, if anything, about the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

I was trying to paraphrase what I believe Simon Southerton had stated and, since he confined what I said to be correct, I believe then it is his claim. Feel free to present evidence that contradicts it.

The inescapable problem for the Book of Mormon is that it clearly states large populations and an empty land, both of which are shown to be false by current DNA, especially the latter. Now, in order to retain a possibility that the Book of Mormon is historical, the church has to ignore what the book claims, redefine what it has taught about native populations for the last 180 years and suggest that science may not be all that accurate. Smoke and mirrors, no substance.

The article isn't balanced nicely, it is an obvious attempt to provide, once again, a lifeline to doubting faithful of a faint possibility that the Book of Mormon is historical by rejecting what leadership and members have actually taught and believed in the past. (Seriously, one 80 year old reference is supposed to convey something?)

What does this say about those members in the past that had a spiritual confirmation (George Lee anyone) about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon? What exactly was the spirit confirming to them? What inconvenient truths will be disregarded in the future when, once again, science shows the Book of Mormon to be the 19th century production it really is?

And finally if these essays are all that convincing, balanced, accurate and so on, why are they anonymous? The anonymity screams that the church itself is unsure about what they are publishing. They are not going to convince anyone who isn't already tethered behind a dog in the race.

[_Tobin]

Simon,

Nothing you said seems to really disagree with the essay in a substantive way. Your assertions support the thesis that DNA neither proves or disproves the Book of Mormon. The essay outlines several different possibilities which each, independently, provide a legitimate explanation for how both the Book of Mormon and modern DNA science can both be true. Beyond that it's pure conjecture.

We can have silly debates about a scripture which supposedly means the Americas were empty prior to the Nephites, and yet what about the Jaredites and Mulekites? The scriptures themselves describe other migrations. It's perfectly reasonable to assume an existing population that they may or may not have been assimilated into to one degree or another. The "most correctness" of the book is only as related to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

It's equally specious to make arguments about "knowing" what Lehi's DNA would have been. While ancient Israelite DNA has been characterized, it's disingenuous to claim a complete picture exists. A relatively few samples have been taken, a mere infinitesimal fraction of the whole population that existed at the time. You cannot tell me all the different tribes that existed and give me an accurate picture of their DNA. We don't know what we don't know. Lehi very well could have had DNA which contained Asian haplogroups.

You are also disingenuous to dismiss the potential effect of bottleneck events and drift, and this is an area with which the experts simply disagree with you. You claim that the science tells us more than it reasonably does. You are right, the evidence generally agrees with other disciplines which hypothesize Beringia ancestry. And the Book of Mormon makes no such claims rejecting this. Your point? The science doesn't however paint a clear picture of all the complicated population dynamics in the Americas which involved countless tens of millions of peoples. We can't see DNA patterns to support population changes that we know about through authenticated historical records, yet you presume to suggest that the science can tell us things about entirely unknown people that have been genetically lost? Ludicrous.

Water Dog -

As I've pointed out repeatedly, Simon is less than honest about what the research actually says. No legitimate researcher or scientist would do what he is doing (as I've noted on this forum - "real" scientists don't go around disproving religious texts). And I really don't think much of his claims or his reasons for disputing the Book of Mormon. He just makes assumptions that may be unfounded (as you've noted) and conclusions based on those likely flawed assumptions by misrepresenting what the science really is. That is not how a reputable researcher would behave and as a result, I think he should be discredited and anything he has to say discounted.

[_Jaybear]

Because the Book of Mormon may not be any of the things you claim it is. A small colony of human-beings from the Middle-east could have travelled here and set up a small colony. They may have had little to no contact with the larger civilizations already here and their descendants could now be part of the larger mixed population of Native Americans. Nothing Simon (or the rest of his pet bozos) have presented show that is untrue.

You miss the point. Its not my claim that is at issue. I claim the book is an obvious fraud.

It was Joseph Smith's claim of what the book represents that is at issue. Surely you are familiar with this statement:

In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people....

[_Tobin]

You miss the point. Its not my claim that is at issue. I claim the book is an obvious fraud.

Oh, I tend to agree, but not for the reasons you've stated. The reason it is an obvious fraud is because the gold plates don't seem to exist (and supposedly disappeared). I personally refuse to believe the Book of Mormon is factual until I see those myself. I hold open the possibility that it may have a basis in fact, but unless or until those plates show up - the prospects of that being true are remote.

It was Joseph Smith's claim of what the book represents that is at issue. Surely you are familiar with this statement:

In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people....

So what? Joseph Smith was a 19th-century man. I discount what he had to say because he likely didn't have all the facts himself. The Book of Mormon may have a basis in fact (i.e. there really are plates) and Joseph Smith could have misunderstood what they really represented or who the Lehites (and others) really were.

[_Fence Sitter]

I am truly puzzled that anyone who has come to accept the fact that homo sapiens have walked this planet for 200,000 years, and that story of the global flood is a religious myth, can still cling to the possibility that Smith's claims about the origin of the Book of Mormon have any basis in fact.

I am truly puzzled that anyone who has been alive a few decades would blindly accept as established fact any claims whatsoever made about people and events which supposedly took place hundreds, thousands to hundreds of thousands of years ago, which nobody alive witnessed first-hand.

Maybe you should ask these guys why they do.