Lehi's DNA

[_stemelbow]

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.

I do realize finding a trace of Lehi and co's DNA would be convincing, but we're still left wondering what could possibly be expected in terms of what is Lehi and co DNA? If we don't know what to look for how can we possibly find a trace?

The article on Jewish DNA was all about post diaspora assumptions. It does not address the question at hand.

[_stemelbow]

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."

My poinst was I trusted that claim that "Many researchers believe that the Vikings established settlements along the eastern shores of North America and as far north as the Canadian Arctic" and in that I overstated the permanently claim. the point being there are posssibilities in spite of the studies. We simply don't know because the studies themselves aren't broad enough, aren't complete enough, and can't tell the whole story. Thus, we're left reading the assumptions of what experts say are their best bets. In other words we simply don't know many things and to claim that we do know it all because of some of these studies and ideas being thrown about is just silly, if you ask me.

[_Morley]

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.

Show me a case where scientists have not been able to find a population's DNA that they knew from historical or religious documents was there. There are none. Of course, other than Lehi's descendants.

[_Morley]

My poinst was I trusted that claim that "Many researchers believe that the Vikings established settlements along the eastern shores of North America and as far north as the Canadian Arctic" and in that I overstated the permanently claim. the point being there are posssibilities in spite of the studies. We simply don't know because the studies themselves aren't broad enough, aren't complete enough, and can't tell the whole story. Thus, we're left reading the assumptions of what experts say are their best bets. In other words we simply don't know many things and to claim that we do know it all because of some of these studies and ideas being thrown about is just silly, if you ask me.

We don't know everything. For example, science believes that the sun is the center of the solar system. It has not tested for all the other possible theories--nor can it. I accept the best science at hand and think that probably the sun is the center of the solar system.

[_stemelbow]

Show me a case where scientists have not been able to find a population's DNA that they knew from historical or religious documents was there. There are none. Of course, other than Lehi's descendants.

If its claimed that we would certainly be able to detect Lehi and cos genetic influence on Native Americans, then the caes ought to be made to prove that. Here I am questioning such an assumption, and instead of getting a response on it, I am asked to prove the negative for some reason. Sorry, Morley, it just doesn't make any sense to do that. Besides I think its already been shown that there are plenty of questions in genetic research in terms of trying to draw lines about where people come from, how they arrive in areas and such.

[_Buffalo]

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.

Maybe this will help to illustrate what I'm talking about:

http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/W ... psMaps.pdf

http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mcdonald/worldmtdnamap.pdf

As far as a "relatively small population" goes,


Ether 15:2
2 He saw that there had been slain by the sword already nearly two millions of his people, and he began to sorrow in his heart; yea, there had been slain two millions of mighty men, and also their wives and their children.


Mormon 6:14
14 And Lamah had fallen with his ten thousand; and Gilgal had fallen with his ten thousand; and Limhah had fallen with his ten thousand; and Jeneum had fallen with his ten thousand; and Cumenihah, and Moronihah, and Antionum, and Shiblom, and Shem, and Josh, had fallen with their ten thousand each.


Alma 60:22
22 Yea, will ye sit in idleness while ye are surrounded with thousands of those, yea, and tens of thousands, who do also sit in idleness, while there are thousands round about in the borders of the land who are falling by the sword, yea, wounded and bleeding?


Alma 28:11
11 And the bodies of many thousands are laid low in the earth, while the bodies of many thousands are moldering in heaps upon the face of the earth; yea, and many thousands are mourning for the loss of their kindred, because they have reason to fear, according to the promises of the Lord, that they are consigned to a state of endless wo.


Alma 3:26
26 And in one year were thousands and tens of thousands of souls sent to the eternal world, that they might reap their rewards according to their works, whether they were good or whether they were bad, to reap eternal happiness or eternal misery, according to the spirit which they listed to obey, whether it be a good spirit or a bad one.


Mormon 2:9
9 And now, the Lamanites had a king, and his name was Aaron; and he came against us with an army of forty and four thousand. And behold, I withstood him with forty and two thousand. And it came to pass that I beat him with my army that he fled before me. And behold, all this was done, and three hundred and thirty years had passed away.


Mormon 2:25
25 And it came to pass that we did contend with an army of thirty thousand against an army of fifty thousand. And it came to pass that we did stand before them with such firmness that they did flee from before us.

[_Buffalo]

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.

That's not the case with the Nephites.

[_Morley]

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.

I do realize finding a trace of Lehi and co's DNA would be convincing, but we're still left wondering what could possibly be expected in terms of what is Lehi and co DNA? If we don't know what to look for how can we possibly find a trace?

The article on Jewish DNA was all about post diaspora assumptions. It does not address the question at hand.

Nope, the article on Jewish DNA was your introduction, not mine or Buffalo's (if I recall correctly). The "question on hand" was answered thoroughly in Southerton's thread. The DNA that would be expected to be found would be Middle Eastern/European. This DNA has been found in other populations where it has been expected (see: your Jewish DNA study). The Jewish DNA in your study is the same as what we would expect to find in Lehi's descendants. If that wasn't found, at least some other European/middle Eastern DNA should have been found. None of it has been.

[_Morley]

Show me a case where scientists have not been able to find a population's DNA that they knew from historical or religious documents was there. There are none. Of course, other than Lehi's descendants.

If its claimed that we would certainly be able to detect Lehi and cos genetic influence on Native Americans, then the caes ought to be made to prove that. Here I am questioning such an assumption, and instead of getting a response on it, I am asked to prove the negative for some reason. Sorry, Morley, it just doesn't make any sense to do that. Besides I think its already been shown that there are plenty of questions in genetic research in terms of trying to draw lines about where people come from, how they arrive in areas and such.

So, you're asking me to prove that every DNA study that has ever been conducted is accurate? That makes no sense.

[_Morley]

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.

That's not the case with the Nephites.

+1