Lehi's DNA

[_stemelbow]

Where does this article suggest that that "geneticists [are] have[ing] trouble concluding where many populations come from"?

I offered the first quote and study to suggest that even for jews, who have been heavily studied in this arena, it is pretty hard to conclude the ultimate origin of their peoples. This study for instance, draws a lot of probably conclusions as to the jews post diaspora. It appears that its hard to go far beyond that era.

[_stemelbow]

The Vikings didn't come to stay permanently - the Vikings were raiders.

That conclusion is a safe one for sure, but the study I linked for you earlier suggested its possible that your conclusion is not true--that Vikings could have inhabited, and perhaps could have stayed permanently. They wouldn't know that from what's been found so far.

The Nephites came and stayed for 1000 years, and grew to populations in the millions.

I think that's a bit misleading considering the text. Afterall, it was relatively early on, when the term "lamanite" was used to talk about those who weren't Nephites moreso than any real genetic links to Laman and Lemuel and whoever else disaffected with them.

The "Northern Kingdom" thing is a red herring. First, Semtic DNA is Semitic DNA. There are certain markers from the middle east - finding any of them in Amerindian populations would be a tremendous find. They've found none. It's like claiming that the O'Dohertys would have totally different DNA type than the Doyles because they're different families - but their both Irish. They'd be similar, even if not identical.

I just don't think where your dogmatic sounding conclusions are coming from. I hope from a reliable source. Anything?

Second, it doesn't matter if the Northern Kingdom were descended from the Portuguese or the Dutch, they'd still be foreign to Native American populations and their introduction into the bloodline would be easily detectable.

And what's more, you're smart enough to know I'm right.

I just disagree. Prove to me that a relative small population which incorporates into another population is detectable in each case genetically? That is, afterall, what you'd be claiming. I don't' know if its all that easy. It seems quite complicated to me, just by reading the text itself.

[_Morley]

I just disagree. Prove to me that a relative small population which incorporates into another population is detectable in each case genetically? That is, afterall, what you'd be claiming. I don't' know if its all that easy. It seems quite complicated to me, just by reading the text itself.

You're kidding, right? The article that you linked to on isolating Jewish DNA is one such instance. The article you introduced into Southerton's Very Limited Geography thread, about 2500 year-old European DNA in Mongolia is another. Have you not been reading the articles you're linking to and arguing from? I am genuinely confused.

[_Morley]

Where does this article suggest that that "geneticists [are] have[ing] trouble concluding where many populations come from"?

I offered the first quote and study to suggest that even for jews, who have been heavily studied in this arena, it is pretty hard to conclude the ultimate origin of their peoples. This study for instance, draws a lot of probably conclusions as to the jews post diaspora. It appears that its hard to go far beyond that era.

Where do you get this? The article doesn't say this.

The study wasn't attempting to address Jewish "ultimate origins." Nor is anyone trying to address Lehi's ultimate origins. We are trying to discover traces of his DNA among Native Americans. Alas, we cannot.

[_Frank J Sheed]

Joseph Smith said that when a person was baptized of water and of the Spirit, his blood would literally be transformed into the blood of Israel. It's also in Mormon Doctrine by Elder McConkie. It stands to reason that if God, in modern times, literally changes the blood of those who become members of the House of Israel, that He could have changed it in a different direction when the last of the righteous Nephites/Lamanites perished (i.e., when Moroni went the way of all the earth). Any traces of Israelite DNA would have been extinguished when the Lamanites descended into darkness and wickedness. Seems like a simple, elegant, and logical explanation for the lack of "Lehite" DNA in descendants of the Lamanites.

[_Morley]

The Vikings didn't come to stay permanently - the Vikings were raiders.

That conclusion is a safe one for sure, but the study I linked for you earlier suggested its possible that your conclusion is not true--that Vikings could have inhabited, and perhaps could have stayed permanently. They wouldn't know that from what's been found so far.

Stem, that was not a study. It was a web page asking questions about the study. I think this the part you're referencing:

The Vikings apparently stayed in Newfoundland for three to ten years. If the Icelanders in the study can be traced to a Native American woman, then several additional questions arise that the study does not pose. For example, did any of the Vikings remain in North America after the settlers left Newfoundland? Did the Vikings settle anywhere else in North America? And if so, did they stay for a longer period of time? Many researchers believe that the Vikings established settlements along the eastern shores of North America and as far north as the Canadian Arctic. If that is the case, a more prevalent link between the Vikings and Native Americans may exist.

There's a vast difference between science and some guy/gal talking about science. And I don't see where even this Historic Mysteries website's author says that he/she thinks Vikings "could have stayed permanently."

[_Quasimodo]

Any traces of Israelite DNA would have been extinguished when the Lamanites descended into darkness and wickedness. Seems like a simple, elegant, and logical explanation for the lack of "Lehite" DNA in descendants of the Lamanites.

I suppose that the total negation of scientific fact WOULD be a good way to beat back one's self doubt about one's religious beliefs. "God must have changed the DNA and so I can still believe".

This works well for many unpleasant facts. The age of the Earth. Dinosaurs and the extensive fossil record. Evolution.

Good luck with that.

[_DarkHelmet]

The problem is, Lehi was a chaste man, like Boyd K. Packer, and probably kept his little factory locked and abandoned, covered in cobwebs. So where do we look for the DNA for such a righteous and chaste man?

[_Joseph]

What one and all are missing is not that Lehi and his millions of descendants are nowhere to be found, but that they were pure, white & delighsome because they Did NOT have DNA. They had the light of Christ and when some lost it the Holy Ghost grabbed a bunch of DNA from another group and shoved it into the lamanites.

Thus, Lamanites look like they came from Asia when in reality they did not. It was a natural way for the Holy Ghost to make them darker to fit their sins, idleness and slothfull ways.

[_stemelbow]

You're kidding, right? The article that you linked to on isolating Jewish DNA is one such instance. The article you introduced into Southerton's Very Limited Geography thread, about 2500 year-old European DNA in Mongolia is another. Have you not been reading the articles you're linking to and arguing from? I am genuinely confused.

Neither of those prove the case, actually. Please show me how you think so? Also my question is asking if such detection is possible in each and every case in the world. I realize there may be some instances where small populations who migrate and settle among larger host populations are genetically detectable. But that doesn't prove it for each and every case.