A Very Limited Geography

[_stemelbow]

I missed that in his comments. You might want to be careful of your own.

Thanks for the warning...I"ll watch it.

Then how do they keep doing it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemba_people

They claims some of their ancestor came from Jerusalem are about 2500 years ago, only a 100 years after Lehi and another group were to have left. We see both cultural evidence supporting their heritage as well as DNA. How do you suppose scientists know this?

I really am speaking from memory. this piece
here may describe what I understand to be the reservations regarding the Lemba example. I realize it’s a FAIR piece so its quite suspect around here as is, but its okay. Don’t pay attention to the end wherein he goes off about critics. It really has no place. Again I reference this from memory, so if you have issues with it we can explore.

But yet they have been doing just that, and it's not being done by the3 critics, but by scientists, most of whom probably don't know anything about the Book of Mormon.

But its theoretical when done by the experts. When picked up on by the critics it seems to become dogmatic fact. In this, it seems like the critics have missed the boat, by and large.

The only thing we are seeing is your own bias. The science is not perfect, but is pretty good, and they do know quite a bit, and so far none of it supports LDS claims of Israelites coming to America anciently.

I agree with your second sentence in particular. My point is merely that this doesn’t add up to a very good critique on the whole of the Book of Mormon claims. That is not to be read as saying the opposite of the argument—that the science on it somehow confirms the Book of Mormon story.

[_Buffalo]

LGT was a response to earlier science showing a lack of archaeological evidence supporting Book of Mormon.

No, it wasn't. It was, quite demonstrably, an outgrowth of the concerted Book of Mormon study conducted by the first post-pioneering generation of Latter-day Saints.

The DNA is showing the limits of the LGT.

Of course, your assertions will play well in this venue. (It's not a very discriminating audience, by any means--much like the RfM crowd, but without as much froth dripping from their mouths.) But the "DNA disproves the Book of Mormon" artifice has long-since played itself out in terms of its capacity to persuade intelligent and discerning Latter-day Saints. It will, no doubt, still function adequately as a second or third-tier justification (as with most so-called "scientific" criticisms of Mormonism), but the now-well-established appreciation of its several false premises, coupled with the scientific clarity provided by those who really do understand population genetics, has rendered the Southerton/Murphy gambit effectively moot.

It does, however, make a nice bookend to the Spalding/Rigdon theories of Book of Mormon authorship on the shelf of failed anti-Mormon stratagems.

Which group of Native Americans carries Hebrew DNA, Will?

[_Buffalo]

This enterprising young lad has finally discovered the borders of the Nephite Homeland:

[_stemelbow]

Which group of Native Americans carries Hebrew DNA, Will?

I think the issue is what is hebrew DNA?

[_Buffalo]

In all this, its not the LGT alone that causes problems for the DNA critique of the religion, indeed that would only be a small part of it, but the assumption that we can define the DNA of ancient Israelites and the origins of the "Native" american peoles.

What makes you think we can't?

[_stemelbow]

What makes you think we can't?

Its been a few years since I've looked into the sources of this stuff, but as I recall it seems evident their is considerable questions in trying to pin point the DNA of ancient Israelites based on a number of factors. SOme of those factors are where did the Israelites come from? Where did they disperse to? What effect did the conquering powers have on their DNA? How much intermixing took place between them and the other nations?

Most importantly much of the assumptions regarding ancient Israelite DNA is that modern samples, from jews partly, somehow define the DNA of ancients. But in the end, there are too many questions, and the data (the actual DNA) don't seem to support that notion. I referenced a FAIR presentation in my reply to Themis. You can read it for some idea of what I was exposed to. It has references too. I'll have to dig quite a bit to resurrect what I understood about this issue completely.

[_Buffalo]

Which group of Native Americans carries Hebrew DNA, Will?

I think the issue is what is hebrew DNA?

Hebrews are Semites, closely related to other Semitic groups like Canaanites. It's not like these are unknown peoples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic#Ethnicity_and_race

[_Buffalo]

I notice, by the way, that not a single TBM aside from Stem even attempted to rebut the OP. Why is that?

[_Buffalo]

What makes you think we can't?

Its been a few years since I've looked into the sources of this stuff, but as I recall it seems evident their is considerable questions in trying to pin point the DNA of ancient Israelites based on a number of factors. SOme of those factors are where did the Israelites come from? Where did they disperse to? What effect did the conquering powers have on their DNA? How much intermixing took place between them and the other nations?

Most importantly much of the assumptions regarding ancient Israelite DNA is that modern samples, from jews partly, somehow define the DNA of ancients. But in the end, there are too many questions, and the data (the actual DNA) don't seem to support that notion. I referenced a FAIR presentation in my reply to Themis. You can read it for some idea of what I was exposed to. It has references too. I'll have to dig quite a bit to resurrect what I understood about this issue completely.

Is there anything in Native American DNA that looks like a contribution from an unknown, possibly Semitic group?

[Guest]

Yeah, it couldn't possibly be because they recognize that she's a humbug, could it?

You know, I may not be an expert in Mesoamerica, but I think I have a fairly decent handle on the subject of ancient history, decent enough to know that the real humbug here is the attempt to make it look like the inability to prove a negative is somehow persuasive evidence of a positive case.

Whatever her bona fides or lack thereof in Mesoamerican Studies, I think the highly intelligent and rational beastie is able to see through the mass of inconsistencies that constitute what there is of a case for the Book of Mormon as an ancient document from Mesoamerica. I have yet to see a single argument for the Book of Mormon as an ancient text that would stand up to the kind of scrutiny that would be necessary to establish a secular scholarly case in favor of that view. A number of beastie's observations are eminently sensible, as anyone with an ounce of sense who is not blinded by partisan fervor can see.

It gets down to this for me: at present you can't overcome the problem of a lack of evidence in favor of your case for an ancient Book of Mormon. There just isn't enough there. History books are not written based on LDS testimonies. While I agree that one cannot prove a negative, I see no reason even to try. Give me one compelling reason to consider the Book of Mormon an ancient document from Mesoamerica. Just one. Until you can, I see no reason to discuss this further. You have no case.