News DNA tests disprove Mormon scripture

[Amp1]

The book's narrative focuses on a tribe of Jews who sailed from Jerusalem to the New World in 600 BC and split into two main warring factions.
...According to the Book of Mormon, by 385 AD the dark-skinned Lamanites had wiped out other Hebrews. The Mormon church called the victors "the principal ancestors of the American Indians...

I believe this to be the crux of the matter. The authorities (or Elders) made the assumption that the Lamanites and Nephites are the ancestors of the Native Americans that's where the mistake might have been made.

Disclaimer: I merely bring this up as another POV, I don't have a religious affiliation.

BTW, couldn't the same or some different sort of DNA testing be used to check the validity of some claims made in the Urantiabook about the origin of life and evolution. see: URANTIABOOK.ORG[/URL]

 

[selfAdjoint]

I believe this to be the crux of the matter. The authorities (or Elders) made the assumption that the Lamanites and Nephites are the ancestors of the Native Americans that's where the mistake might have been made.

Disclaimer: I merely bring this up as another POV, I don't have a religious affiliation.

And not only there. Consider that at any somatic gene site the Ark passengers only could contribute ten alleles (Noah's two, his wife's two, and two from each of the son's wives). So if there are more alleles than ten at some genes sites today (and there are), where did they come from?

 

[Anttech]

The mormons didnt come over on Noas ark, but a different one, and if I am not mistaken they were a whole tribe... It really is such a load of BS, but a nice story nether-the-less

 

[Moonbear]

And not only there. Consider that at any somatic gene site the Ark passengers only could contribute ten alleles (Noah's two, his wife's two, and two from each of the son's wives). So if there are more alleles than ten at some genes sites today (and there are), where did they come from?

Well, we do still have something known as random mutation and evolution. In this example, evolutionary theory would work in favor of supporting the religious argument rather than in opposition to it.

As for the Mormon religion, will they lose followers over this discovery? Sure. Religions do lose followers from time to time when they can't reconcile the teachings of the religion with their personal view of the world. Will they lose all their followers? I doubt it; as mentioned above, there are always those who will turn a blind eye to science in favor of their religious faith (if not, there would be nobody believing in ID either). Religions also have a way of adapting, and "bending" the rules to adjust to changing views of the congregation. The difficulty the Mormon religion faces is that unlike many other religions, they claim the Book of Mormon is to be taken completely literally, which means there's a lot less wiggle room to modify interpretations of what it says to make it fit with what quickly becomes obvious to many people as inconsistent with real life evidence. The major change is they're going to have to find a new hook to get people to convert to their religion. I'm somewhat surprised it worked in the first place to tell people something so contrary to common knowledge and fairly racist sounding (they were descendants of those whose skin was darkened because they were bad, and if they convert, they'll become white again?) and have that actually work to convert them rather than completely offending them.

 

[kmarinas86]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1178456481485432134&q=mormon

(DNA --- 9:16)

White need not refer to skin... not as the way that racists usually interpret.

(Before)
It says that Jesus Christ went to the Americas around 33 AD (i.e. supposedly after Christ ascended above the clouds).

Maybe there were 2 or more races at Israel and one of them moved to the Americas, maybe their bones (few) weren't fossilized in Israel, maybe was there another language at Israel (an unwritten one)...

 

[ray b]

has anyone tested Abraham's claim to be from the city of Ur
as I think the jews had a beginning in Egypt as a part of king tut's dad's cult
perhaps DNA tests could prove this

 

[Anttech]

So, the Mormon story could have elements of truth concerning egypto-american history in it. Perhaps that's why some people want to discount it.

Apart from the fact that the DNA history, linguistics history, and Archeological findings all point to the fact that the native americans are from Asia NOT the ME, Asia Minor or North Africa.

This is what I find strange about Mormonism, I know some very inteligent people, scientists even, who can't seem to get there head round that fact that their profit Lied... That the "History of the Americas" that is outlined in the Book of Morrmons is totally fictious...

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Yeah the fact that a lot of Indigenous indian cultures share many genetic characteristics and also the same dificiency in their genes that increases their intolerance to alcohol, much like the Japanese and Chinese, is pretty good evidence of their roots. I would take anything else with a pinch of salt personally but then I'm not a Mormon.

 

[quantumcarl]

Yeah the fact that a lot of Indigenous indian cultures share many genetic characteristics and also the same dificiency in their genes that increases their intolerance to alcohol, much like the Japanese and Chinese, is pretty good evidence of their roots. I would take anything else with a pinch of salt personally but then I'm not a Mormon.

:zzz:
Its not as simple as you seem to think it is. There has been more than one migration to the Americas from more than one place on the planet. There is a weath of DNA amongst the many nations, past and present, of the Americas.

Please wade through this report. I am giving a small sample of a very large study that indicates a Dual Migration. It is very detailed with regard to DNA findings and uses highly sophisticated Cytological and Geneological terminology and physiology. Perhaps that's why you're confused about the idea, along with so many others.

The search for the ancestors of the Native American Y chromosomes in Siberia and Asia has revealed that the M3 lineage is found only on the Chukotka peninsula of far northeastern Siberia, among the Chukchi and the Siberian Eskimos (Karafet et al. 1997; Lell et al. 1997). The most recent ancestors of the M3 lineage have been traced to central southern Siberia (Karafet et al. 1999; Santos et al. 1999).

The Siberian RPS4Y-T haplogroup has been located in the Lake Baikal region, east of M3 and its progenitors. This has been interpreted as indicating that these Y-chromosome lineages came to the Americas in distinct migrations (Karafet et al. 1999). Finally, Y chromosomes harboring the Tat polymorphism (haplogroup Tat-C) were found dispersed between native populations of central Asia and northern Europe (Santos et al. 1999), supporting a relatively recent link between these populations (Zerjal et al. 1997).

You'll note in this small sample that the suggested areas migrated from to the americas are Siberia, Northern Europe and Asia.

You can read further on in this outstanding study at this address:

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v70n1/013099/013099.text.html?erFrom=-6323885775471212821Guest

And this studies only the "Y" chromosomes of specific nations of the American Native.

 

[Anttech]

Your link is dead...

If there is such a wealth explain why native americans don't have a "wealth" of characteristics? And your short Quote from the link I can't get to, doesn't say anything about your Eygptian claim

 

[Mk]

Finally, I'm glad to see more scientific discussions in Politics and World Affairs.

 

[iansmith]

Several genetic based studies have been done to find where the native american came from. I posted some a few months ago.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=671032&postcount=4

 

[Skyhunter]

Apart from the fact that the DNA history, linguistics history, and Archeological findings all point to the fact that the native americans are from Asia NOT the ME, Asia Minor or North Africa.

This is what I find strange about Mormonism, I know some very inteligent people, scientists even, who can't seem to get there head round that fact that their profit Lied... That the "History of the Americas" that is outlined in the Book of Morrmons is totally fictious...

What the church should do is admit the mistakes made by the prophet and adjust their faith to encompass the new information.

 

[selfAdjoint]

What the church should do is admit the mistakes made by the prophet and adjust their faith to encompass the new information.

More productive from their point of view would be to interpret the material metaphorically. That's how mainstream churches cope with Genesis. Of course that's how they also lost a lot of their worshipers to the fundamentalists!

 

[Grogs]

White need not refer to skin... not as the way that racists usually interpret.

When there are verses that specifically refer to white skin and black skin, I don't see how it could be interpreted otherwise. My understanding is that white and black have been changed to pure and impure in later versions of the BoM.

This is what I find strange about Mormonism, I know some very inteligent people, scientists even, who can't seem to get there head round that fact that their profit Lied... That the "History of the Americas" that is outlined in the Book of Morrmons is totally fictious...

I don't think it's a matter of intelligence. I call it 'linearity of thought.' Metaphorically speaking, I think everyone lives in a box that represents the limits of what a person is willing to question. Ideas inside the box get examined critically, while everything else gets dismissed out-of-hand. And of course it's not limited to just religion. You can see the same thing in politics, science, and just about any other contentious area of human thought.


I think that, when confronted with conflicting ideas from science and religion, most people choose one of 3 paths: they completely reject science in favor of their religious views, the accept the science and stop believing in the religion, or they take a viewpoint that both must be correct and try to reconcile the two. The more strict the religion, the more people will be polarized to one of the two extreme views rather than taking the middle ground.

 

[SOS2008]

I personally don't care for organized religion in general. However, if there is to be fair debate on this subject why rely on just this one source? The Mormon church has conducted genealogical research years before other entities, and possesses the largest data base in the world for such purposes. I am not interested in debating anything related to religion, but here are some more links for those who are truly interested:

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=305&previous=L3B1YmxpY2F0aW9ucy9ib29rb2Ztb3Jtb252aWV3LnBocA==

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=314&previous=L3B1YmxpY2F0aW9ucy9ib29rb2Ztb3Jtb252aWV3LnBocA==

 

[Evo]

I personally don't care for organized religion in general. However, if there is to be fair debate on this subject why rely on just this one source? The Mormon church has conducted genealogical research years before other entities, and possesses the largest data base in the world for such purposes.

Don't confuse geneology, which is tracing family trees with birth and death records, etc... with the science of genetics. We're discussing DNA. The two are not even remotely close.

 

[quantumcarl]

I personally don't care for organized religion in general. However, if there is to be fair debate on this subject why rely on just this one source? The Mormon church has conducted genealogical research years before other entities, and possesses the largest data base in the world for such purposes.

Don't confuse geneology, which is tracing family trees with birth and death records, etc... with the science of genetics. We're discussing DNA. The two are not even remotely close.

Apparently we're all going to leven (rise up!) where brewer's yeast runs free in the fields of barley flour and roses taste like cinnamon buns and bear's claws (aka fritters).

 

[SOS2008]

Don't confuse geneology, which is tracing family trees with birth and death records, etc... with the science of genetics. We're discussing DNA. The two are not even remotely close.

Agreed. I didn't mean to convey that, only that they are research minded. Also, to say that proper debate involves more than discussing one source, especially if from one side only. The links I provided are educational from BYU.

Apparently we're all going to leven (rise up!) where brewer's yeast runs free in the fields of barley flour and roses taste like cinnamon buns and bear's claws (aka fritters).

I'm not sure what you mean, but now I'm hungry!

 

[Evo]

Agreed. I didn't mean to convey that, only that they are research minded. Also, to say that proper debate involves more than discussing one source, especially if from one side only. The links I provided are educational from BYU.

No, I'm glad you posted their side, of course, they have a specific agenda trying to tap dance around the truth in an effort to salvage what they can. That's completely to be expected, can't blaim them. Fact is, the people doing DNA testing on the American Indians had no agenda, they were not trying to disprove the Book of Morman, it just happened that their findings disprove the story made up in the Book of Mormon.

 

[quantumcarl]

No, I'm glad you posted their side, of course, they have a specific agenda trying to tap dance around the truth in an effort to salvage what they can. That's completely to be expected, can't blaim them. Fact is, the people doing DNA testing on the American Indians had no agenda, they were not trying to disprove the Book of Morman, it just happened that their findings disprove the story made up in the Book of Mormon.

I'm not sure but, is it the Mormons who have underground bunkers full of geneological records by name? A whole lot of "begats"?
SOS2008, not bagettes!(aka french bread)

I was rhyming leven with heaven. Did you just call me a mormon?

 

[SOS2008]

I think that, when confronted with conflicting ideas from science and religion, most people choose one of 3 paths: they completely reject science in favor of their religious views, the accept the science and stop believing in the religion, or they take a viewpoint that both must be correct and try to reconcile the two. The more strict the religion, the more people will be polarized to one of the two extreme views rather than taking the middle ground.

That is applicable to all of Christianity (i.e., the Bible) and all religions (the Torah, Koran, etc.). One must remember that before written records, history was passed down by story telling. Good story tellers embellished. Also, many story tellers/prophets used parables (including Christ, Mohammad, etc.). IMO, this is why a literal belief of any scripture is silly.

At the same time -- returning to the topic of DNA, most theories such as Africa being the cradle of life (Eve) remain unproven. Also there is not complete acceptance of Plate Tectonics, and when/how land masses may have moved. Look how many times dates have been changed in regard to Earth's history (e.g., the appearance of man). Of course migration took place across the Bering Straits, but who is to say other peoples could not have made it to the Americas by boat as well? How recently have we learned, for example that the Vikings sailed to the Americas before Columbus? Look at the peoples who inhabit islands in the Pacific (Polynesian), and what a mix of origin there is. And how reliable are these tests to separate genes in the determination of one single origin?

I completely support science and the scientific method, but the more we learn the more we realize we don't know.

 

[vanesch]

More productive from their point of view would be to interpret the material metaphorically. That's how mainstream churches cope with Genesis. Of course that's how they also lost a lot of their worshipers to the fundamentalists!

Theology is the art of reconsiling - in one way or another - reveiled religious sources with observation, such as to reduce the tension between what's to be believed and what's seen. Some religions have better theologists than others

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Often, the impetus for faith is what a person believes to be a personal spiritual experience. This is what makes a person believe. For example, the mormons constantly "give witness" in the form of testimonials. So this is really what science runs up against here - faith rooted in personal experiences.

i.e. Since I had a powerful spiritual experience, this religion and all that it teaches must be true.

 

[quantumcarl]

Often, the impetus for faith is what a person believes to be a personal spiritual experience. This is what makes a person believe. For example, the mormons constantly "give witness" in the form of testimonials. So this is really what science runs up against here - faith rooted in personal experiences.

i.e. Since I had a powerful spiritual experience, this religion and all that it teaches must be true.

Its when a religious person expects everyone else to believe the beliefs they have gathered from their personal experiences that things get ugly. In Canada practically every firstnation child from the 1800s to mid 1900s was taken from their parents and put through "residential schools" to "learn english" and to learn about the Catholic, Anglican, Baptisimal Gods.

An outside observer would say (and are saying) that these religions abducted the children to satisfy their own pedophile fetishes because of the evidence that most of the children in residential schools were raped and physically abused. Catholic nuns committed the same atrocities as the priests.

Religion seems to provide reason and an excuse for any type of behaviour and any type of theory one can come up with... as long as you're wearing a tall, pointy hat... or know someone who does.

 

[crazycalhoun]

You'd be surprised at just how long a religion will cling to beliefs in the face of proof. It took over a hundred years before the Catholic Church would accept the Earth went round the sun and was not the centre of the universe.

If equivalence holds (and I'm sure we all believe it does), geocentrism, heliocentrism and any other conceivable model reformulated to consistency with observation is unfalsifiable. We can't say whether the Earth is or is not the physical center of the universe with the tools of our cosmology since the question itself is absurd under them. On the other hand, we can say that geocentrism is less parsimonious than heliocentrism. Parsimony at that scale is hardly the most convincing scientific argument against a model, especially to those who lack a rigorous background in science.

The point is that we show a deep contempt or ignorance of history when we ridicule people who lived centuries before the innovation of rockets and space probes for believing something that, for the most part, was consistent with observed evidence for millenia as well as the philosophical and religious convictions of all the major players. We also show a deep disrespect for Copernican celestial mechanics--which predates calculus--by pretending it is so obvious in the first place.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Galileo's discovery of the large satellites of Jupiter convinced a lot of people of heliocentrism, though I can't see why. Their orbits are perfect illustrations of epicycles!

 

[Skyhunter]

Of course migration took place across the Bering Straits,

Did anyone check which way the footprints were pointed?

I'm just asking.

 

[Skyhunter]

Often, the impetus for faith is what a person believes to be a personal spiritual experience. This is what makes a person believe. For example, the mormons constantly "give witness" in the form of testimonials. So this is really what science runs up against here - faith rooted in personal experiences.

i.e. Since I had a powerful spiritual experience, this religion and all that it teaches must be true.

I ate some mushrooms once that gave me a powerful religious experience.

I don't worship mushrooms though.

 

[Skyhunter]

More productive from their point of view would be to interpret the material metaphorically. That's how mainstream churches cope with Genesis. Of course that's how they also lost a lot of their worshipers to the fundamentalists!

Sad but true, those who believe they already know the truth will stop seeking it. IMO that is spiritual death. We exist in an infinite and eternal universe, to presume that we can know anything, let alone eternal truths and values is the height of arrogance. (Isn't arrogance one of the 7 deadlies?)