The Largest Repository Of Ex-Mormon Material In The World
Containing 3,238 Articles Spanning 204 Topics
Online Since January 1, 2005
|
PLEASE NOTE:
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"DNA".
This website,
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
read
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
|
|
|
DNA
Total Articles:
12
The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Canberra, Australia, has concluded along with many other scientists studying mitochondria DNA lines that American Indians and Polynesians are of Asian extraction. This destroys Joseph Smith's statement that North and South American Indians are "Lamanites".
|
|
| | DNA Research And Mormon Scholars Changing Basic Beliefs
Article Archived: Jan 26, 2005, at 08:30 AM
Stored Under Topic: DNA
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Anonymous |  | |
This article is old, however, I feel the need to post it again. From BeliefNet:
Plant geneticist Simon Southerton was a Mormon bishop in Brisbane, Australia when he woke up the morning of Aug. 3, 1998 to the
shattering conclusion that his knowledge of science made it impossible for him to believe any longer in the Book of Mormon.
Two years later he started writing "Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA and the Mormon Church," published by Signature
Books and due in stores next month. Along the way, he found a world of scholarship that has led him to conclude The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints belief is changing, but not through prophesy and revelation.
Rather, Southerton sees a behind-the-scenes revolution led by a small group of Brigham Young University scholars and their
critics who are reinterpreting fundamental teachings of the Book of Mormon in light of DNA research findings. Along the way, he
says, these apologist scholars, with the apparent blessing of church leadership, are contradicting church teachings about the
origins of American Indians and Polynesians.
"You've got Mormon apologists in their own publications rejecting what prophets have been saying for decades. This becomes very
troubling for ordinary members of the church," Southerton said.
And while the work of the BYU apologists ? the term means those who speak or write in defense of something ? remains confined
largely to intellectual circles, some church members who have always understood themselves in light of Mormon teachings about the
people known as Lamanites are suffering identity crises.
"It's very difficult. It is almost traumatizing," said Jose Aloayza, a Midvale attorney who likened facing this new reality to
staring into a spiritual abyss.
"It's that serious, that real," said Aloayza, a Peruvian native born into the church and still a member. "I'm almost here feeling
I need an apology. Our prophets should have known better. That's the feeling I get."
Southerton, now a senior researcher with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Canberra, Australia,
has concluded along with many other scientists studying mitochondrial DNA lines that American Indians and Polynesians are of
Asian extraction.
Continue Reading Story.
| | | Answering The DNA Apologetics
Article Archived: Feb 16, 2005, at 09:04 AM
Stored Under Topic: DNA
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Simon Southerton | | |
During my trip behind the Zion Curtain I became more familiar with the dominant lines of defence in response to the DNA evidence challenging the Book of Mormon. Some of you may be interested in my responses so I have posted these below.
Note: It is important to remember that most DNA apologists defending the Book of Mormon, do so on the assumption that Lehi and his family made a small genetic impact in the Americas. They flatly reject the hemispheric geography, the view accepted by most Mormons and all the prophets. This needs to be kept in mind when considering their arguments.
1. Bottleneck effect, genetic drift, Hardy-Weinberg violations and other technical problems would prevent us from detecting Israelite genes.
I agree entirely. In 600 BC there were probably several million American Indians living in the Americas. If a small group of Israelites entered such a massive native population it would be very, very hard to detect their genes 200, 2000 or even 20,000 years later. But does such a scenario fit with what the Book of Mormon plainly states or what the prophets have taught for 175 years? Short answer. No! Long answer. Nooo!
2. We dont know what Lehi, Sariah, Zoram, Ishmael, Ishmaels wife, or Muleks genes look like.
Sure, we dont know what DNA lineage these Book of Mormon people had, but we do know they were Israelites. We know a great deal about the DNA lineages of living Israelites and living Israelites are descended from dead Israelites who lived 2600 years ago. Israelite DNA lineages belong to the same family groups found in European populations. These are the H, I, J, K, N, T, U, V, W and X groups. Essentially all Europeans and Israelites possess one of these lineages. In fact many other Middle Eastern populations such as the Syrians, Egytpians, Lebanese and other Arabic groups have similar DNA lineages. There is a smattering (<0.4%) of European lineages in American Indian populations but scientists justifiably assume they arrived after Columbus. They are most common in tribes that had greater impact with Europeans (North American); they are not common in Mesoamerica, the only plausible site for the Book of Mormon; and the lineages found so far are most common in Western European populations such as Spain.
3. The mitochondrial DNA lineages tell us nothing about the male lineages.
That is absolutely correct
but so what? Are we expected to believe that only males passed on the Israelite DNA? Y chromosome studies show strong links to Asia (>90%) as well. There is a higher European presence, which is not surprising, given that males dominated the early colonist parties.
4. When God changed the skin color of American Indians, couldnt he have changed the DNA as well?
Yes, if God is a conniving bastard who would stop at nothing to trick his children, he could have changed the DNA. But why did he have to change it so that it matched Asian DNA? How could a Heavenly Father, who supposedly loves us more than we can comprehend, stoop to such depths?! Weve already offended the Blacks and the Indians. Do we need to offend the Asians too!
5. Mitochondrial DNA only tells us about one ancestral line out of many. If we go back 10 generations it only tells us about 1 in 1024 of our ancestors. If we go back another 10 generations it only tells us about 1 in over a million of our ancestors.
This is a specious argument that has been quite popular among the apologists lately. It is a clever ruse, which on the surface looks sound, but which is based in deception. The vast majority of mitochondrial lineages found throughout the world can be grouped into less than 25 families, represented by letters such as A, H, X etc. If we look at American Indians, essentially 100% of their mitochondrial lineages fall into one of 5 families; A, B, C, D or X which were not derived from Israel. So 20 generations back, we are not talking about millions of unknowable mitochondrial lineages in an American Indians pedigree chart. We are talking about 5 that occupy virtually all of those millions of ancestral slots. Essentially all of those lineages, even those that end up in males and are not passed on, clearly must have belonged to the 5 lineage families. It is possible that some lineages may have not been detected yet or have been lost in time through chance, but these would have been very rare lineages.
6. The X lineage could be evidence for Israelite ancestry.
American Indian X lineages are descended from common ancestors who lived over 20,000 years ago in Asia. American Indian X lineages are even more distantly related to Israelite or European X lineages. In fact, most Israelite X lineage are now grouped in a different family, the N family, because they are so different to Asian and American X lineages. The X lineage has been found in ancient remains that pre-date the Book of Mormon period.
7. The wives of the early Book of Mormon colonists (Sariah etc or even the Jaredite women) may have brought the A,B,C,D and X lineages to the Americas.
The amount of DNA variation found in all 5 American Indian female DNA lineage families is sufficient to indicate that they have been present in the Americas for at least 15,000 years, possibly longer. This predates the existence of Israel by many thousands of years. Of course it is possible (but exceedingly unlikely) that several Asian woman carrying Asian lineages travelled to Israel where they intermarried with the ancestors of the Lehites and Mulekites, and that some Native American A, B, C D or X lineages came from them. What are the odds that this absolutely remarkable scenario actually happened in reality? I guess everything is possible for the Lord, but again it leaves me feeling less than kind thoughts about a God who could allow this to happen, knowing how much it would trick people. Why dont we see these Asian lineages among Middle Eastern populations? The truth usually lies in the simplest explanation.
| | | New York Times Article On DNA And Geneaology
Article Archived: Mar 15, 2005, at 07:58 AM
Stored Under Topic: DNA
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Dimmesdale | | |
A HALF-PAGE article in the NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/14/opinion/14leroi.html? (requires login)
An excerpt:
One of the minor pleasures of this discovery is a new kind of genealogy. Today it is easy to find out where your ancestors came from - or even when they came, as with so many of us, from several different places. If you want to know what fraction of your genes are African, European or East Asian, all it takes is a mouth swab, a postage stamp and $400 - though prices will certainly fall.
| | | DNA Project To Trace Human Steps
Article Archived: Apr 14, 2005, at 07:51 AM
Stored Under Topic: DNA
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Anonymous | | |
A project spanning five continents is aiming to map the history of human migration via DNA.
The Genographic Project will collect DNA samples from over 100,000 people worldwide to help piece together a picture of how the Earth was colonised.
Samples gathered from indigenous people and the general public will be subjected to lab and computer analysis to extract the valuable genetic data.
Team leader Dr Spencer Wells calls the plan "the Moon shot of anthropology".
The $40m (£21m) privately-funded initiative is a collaboration between National Geographic, IBM and charity the Waitt Family Foundation.
Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
| | | North America Settled By Just 70 People, Study Concludes
Article Archived: May 26, 2005, at 07:38 AM
Stored Under Topic: DNA
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Anonymous | | |
A new study of DNA suggests North America was originally settled by just a few dozen people who crossed a land bridge from Asia during the last Ice Age.
About 14,000 years ago, humans crossed the Bering land bridge from Siberia to North America, most experts agree. But just how many intrepid explorers were involved has not been known.
Previous DNA analyses of the New World's founding looked at just one gene and assumed populations sizes have been constant over time. The new study looked at nine genomic regions to account for variations in single genes, and it assumed that sizes of founding populations change over time. The method favored actual genetic data over estimates used in previous calculations.
"The estimated effective size of the founding population for the New World is about 70 individuals," said Jody Hey, a professor of genetics at Rutgers University.
Hey's calculations are also consistent with archeological evidence suggesting the initial settlement occurred around 12,000 to 14,000 years ago.
"The beauty of the new methodology is that it uses actual DNA sequences collected from Asian peoples and Native Americans, an approach that can provide a detailed portrait of historical populations," Hey said.
Hey focused on the genetics of Amerind-speaking populations, one of three major language groups in the New World representing the earliest migrants who extended deep into the Americas. The results are published in the June 2005 issue of the journal PLoS (Public Library of Science) Biology.
Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.
| | | Does DNA Evidence Really Blow The Book Of Mormon Out Of The Water?
Article Archived: Jun 17, 2005, at 07:42 AM
Stored Under Topic: DNA
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Anonymous | | |
for all those truly honest seekers of truth take a look here:
http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai195.html
If all you Exmo's are really as "open-minded" and "accepting" as you say you are, then go to this link. I promise you won't be dissapointed. Let me know what you think...
- -
The link you have provided, lists quite a few articles purporting to refute the DNA slam dunk against the Book of Mormon.
The first one I clicked on was the article by Kevin L. Barney: "A Brief Review of Murphy and Southerton's 'Galileo Event'". His main thesis is just another variation of the Limited Geography Theory, which would be branded as heretical--if the LDS church still had ecclesiastical leaders who taught doctrine, instead of corporate hacks who practice public relations and preside over investment holding companies.
The Limited Geography Theory is inconsistent with the Book of Mormon's own narrative and claims, as well as the claims made by past prophets. While Barney tries to make it sound like Murphy's and Southerton's understanding of traditional Mormon doctrine is some kind of quaint, fundamentalist view, it is in fact Barney's interpretation of Mormon teachings that is wildly out of sync with what was taught to faithful Mormons consistently for more than 150 years. For him to state that the east-Asian/Siberian land-bridge origin of the majority of pre-Columbian inhabitants of the Americas is consistent with Mormon beliefs is essentially to declare that Joseph Smith and numerous Mormon Prophets, Apostles and other high-ranking Mormon leaders didn't know what they were talking about WHENEVER THEY ADDRESSED THIS SUBJECT, and that the story of Noah's Ark is just a myth. (This is quite disturbing for a church that prides itself on being led by uniquely inspired religious leaders. Undermine their credibility and you undermine any reason for joining such a church.) Barney can believe what he wants to, but he shouldn't disingenuously try to declare his unusually progressive beliefs (for a Mormon) as being consistent with traditional Mormon doctrine and teachings.
Hopefully, Simon Southerton may respond at some time to some of the more technical points raised by BYU's DNA experts. My understanding, however, is that the DNA evidence is particularly devastating to the Book of Mormon and the general consensus of belief among Mormons about the origins of the aboriginal peoples of the Americas, precisely because it provides so much positive support for the generally accepted theory of their east-Asian origins, both in terms of timeline and migration routes, while, on the other hand, providing no positive support for the timeline and claims of Middle Eastern origins made by the Book of Mormon and, traditionally, by Mormon Prophets and Apostles. (isn't this directly contrary to what a faithful Mormon should expect? If faith is a kind of advance acceptance of things that are true before all of the evidence has come in, shouldn't subsequent discoveries and evidence tend to confirm the validity of that faith?)
Even if every conclusion advocated by the apologists can be accepted at face value (a highly dubious proposition), they only get themselves back to arguing that: "Hey, you still can't absolutely prove that some group did not come from the Middle East during the timeframe indicated in the Book of Mormon!"
The mopologists have to ask themselves questions such as the following:
- If the past Mormon prophets did not really have any inspiration informing them of the true origins of the pre-Columbian peoples of the Americas and Polynesian islands, why did they personally pretend to know? Why did Kimball make his remarks about American Indian children of church members turning lighter? Why did BYU sponsor a group called "Lamanite Generation" that included all native Polynesians and American Indians as Lamanites? Why do numerous D&C revelations generally refer to North American Indian populations as Lamanites?
- If there were pre-Lehite inhabitants of the Americas, who came over before the time of Noah's flood, why weren't these original inhabitants of the Americas wiped out in the great flood?
- At a minimum, is it not the responsibility of inspired Prophets and Apostles to (i) refrain from teaching false doctrine; and (ii) correct erroneous doctrines that are accepted by most, if not all, of the members of the Church? (Why do apologists always think that their great religious leaders can be so easily excused for failing miserably in these responsibilities? And why do the past Prophets and Apostles have such a miserable track record in this regard?)
- What does it say about the likelihood of the Book of Mormon's authenticity that DNA evidence supports the Siberian land bridge/east-Asian origin theories that were derided by Mormons for so long, while, at best, providing no support whatsoever for the Book of Mormon stories, if not outright refuting them?
- If so many Mormons over the past several generations have misunderstood the implications of the Book of Mormon regarding the origins of pre-Columbian Americans and Polynesians, what is it that they have "testimonies" of? Do they really understand anything about the Book of Mormon? "The Church is true. The Prophets are true. The Book of Mormon is true. Just don't ask us to carefully define what our testimonies of these things mean and don't try to hold the Church, the Prophets or the Book of Mormon accountable for any past pronouncements. It may have all been a misunderstanding that has been clarified now by our illustrious apologists."
I haven't read each of the FAIR linked articles yet, but from the sampling I have read, the DNA evidence is still devastating. But all bets are off when you're dealing with people who: (i) can claim one day that their church is true because it is led by divinely inspired men and then the next day discount heavily anything those men said that doesn't fit the facts; (ii) who can fatuously declare the pronouncements of several prophets and countless high-ranking ecclesiastical leaders as "non-doctrinal" just so that they (as an apologist without any significant ecclesiastical rank or calling to interpret doctrine) can propose a doctrinal theory that seems to be less embarrassing to the church than traditional teachings; and (iii) will declare victory for their outrageous and bizarre claims if they can get you to concede that you cannot absolutely and 100% prove that their improbable beliefs are not actually true, despite the existence of overwhelming evidence against the plausibility of such beliefs.
| | | No More DNA for Mormons
Article Archived: Aug 12, 2005, at 08:47 AM
Stored Under Topic: DNA
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Natalie R. Collins | | |
Because Simon Southerton was excommunicated from the LDS Church--ostensibly because, while separated from his wife, he had a relationship with another woman--national media attention has been once again focused in on the controversial tenets of Mormonism. Despite the fact the Mormons tried to come up with other reasons to oust Southerton, everybody and their dog knows why he was actually booted. See, Simon's research showed he could not find one single link between the Lost Tribes of Jewish descent, and Native Americans.
If you've done your Book of Mormon research, you know that it claims that Lamanites were the descendants of these extremely directionally-challenged Israelites, and it claims they found themselves, oddly enough, in the Western Hemisphere. Okay, we could MAYBE accept that (can you hear a IT COULD HAPPEN?), even though there isn't one shred of evidence supporting it, except recent DNA evidence, like the extensive research done by Southerton, shows that the Native Americans are actually descended from Asians.
So what do the Mormons do? Kill the messenger, of course!! That's standard practice.
| | | More On Hinckley And Woodward
Article Archived: Dec 21, 2005, at 09:04 AM
Stored Under Topic: DNA
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Simon Southerton | | |
A few weeks ago I posted some information I had gathered that suggested to me that President Hinckley had met with Scott Woodward and asked him to stop doing his research at BYU. Some people may be interested in an update.
This is essentially what I posted previously
Did President Hinckley personally suppress human DNA genealogy research at Brigham Young University?
From several first and second hand reports I suspect the following is true:-
- President Hinckley spoke one-to-one with Scott Woodward in 2002 or 2001, at which time President Hinckley instructed Scott Woodward to stop some or all of his DNA research at BYU. Scott Woodward mentioned the content of this meeting with President Hinckley during a faith-inspiring message to members of his Belmont Apartments single student ward, BYU 1st stake, while he was serving as Bishop.
- At the time of the meeting, Scott Woodward was scientific director of the Molecular Genealogy project at BYU. This project aimed to create a large DNA genealogical database to allow people to trace their ancestral homelands through their DNA.
- At the time of the meeting, Scott Woodward had carried out DNA tests on over 6,000 Native Americans, mostly from Peru. At least 98% of their mitochondrial DNA lineages were most similar to Asian mitochondrial DNA lineages. The results of this research remain largely unpublished today.
- Some time after this meeting, the BYU Molecular Genealogy research project was moved off campus to the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation in Salt Lake City. For a period, Scott Woodward was not affiliated with BYU.
This information led me to suspect that President Hinckley used his authority as President of the LDS Church to suppress human DNA research at Brigham Young University, because he believed the research had already yielded, and may yield more results that were at odds with widespread beliefs Mormons hold about Native American and Polynesian ancestry.
Since that email I have corresponded with a member of the church who met personally with Scott Woodward in Lethbridge, Alberta in May 2001 when he was a guest speaker at a genealogical seminar. According to this person, Dr Woodward told him the exact opposite. He told us that President Hinckley had requested a meeting with him and then told him, that is Woodward, that this was the most IMPORTANT [his emphasis SS] thing he could be doing with his time and to leave everything else behind. This project was where he was to focus his time and energy. This persons cousin had served a mission with Dr. Woodward and was therefore privy to more information than the general attendee. He therefore believes that what I said is a fabrication, totally and complete. This person also stated to me that Dr. Woodward told him that day in Lethbridge, that DNA analysis would only be good for about 10 generations back. [This sounds a very suspect thing for Dr. Woodward to say, but may have been an answer to a question ina different context. -SS]
This person has verified that President Hinckley has in fact personally met with Dr. Woodward and discussed his research with him. I am now left wondering if one of these reports are incorrect or if they are both true.
If there was only one meeting and President Hinckley used the opportunity to stress to Dr. Woodward how important the work was, then why was it necessary, within about a year or two of the meeting, for Scott to leave BYU altogether? Dr. Woodward had been a full Professor of Microbiology at BYU since the mid 90s after publishing a paper in Science on dinosaur DNA. When the molecular genealogy project moved from BYU to Salt Lake City in the Spring of 2003, why was it necessary for his tenured position to be apparently terminated? At the time his name could not be found on the staff directory at BYU and the same is true today (https://y.byu.edu/ae/prod/person/cgi/...). If it was such important work, why couldnt Dr. Woodward have at least maintained some sort of ties with BYU?
The original information about a meeting (in which Dr. Woodward was asked to stop his research) came from a person who is still a faithful member of the church, and they had no reason to make it up. I also have no reason to believe that the person who recently contacted me is giving me incorrect information, ignoring for the moment the dubious 10 generations claims. Consequently, I believe that President Hinckley met with Dr. Woodward twice (at least), and that events between the two meetings may have led to the different outcomes.
So what did happen between May 2001 and mid 2002 that may have changed President Hinckleys outlook?
The first thing is that in May 2001, the BYU molecular genealogy project ran into trouble in New Zealand when they began collecting blood samples from people without obtaining proper national (NZ) approvals. This reached the press in Auckland (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/sto...); however, the BYU project was still collecting samples many months and years later without difficulty.
On the 29th January 2002 President Hinckley was interviewed by Helmut Nemetschek, from German Television. This is the transcript of a question President Hinckley was asked.
HN: Now, Mr. President, one question which is a little bit complicated for me to understand but I heard it and one colleague asked me to ask you. What will be your position when DNA analysis will show that in history there never had been an immigration from Israel to North America? It could be that scientists will find out?
GBH: It hasnt happened. That hasnt been determined yet. All I can say is thats speculative. No one really knows that, the answer to that. Not at this point.
Ill give President Hinckley the benefit of the doubt here. Perhaps in the earlier (prior to May 2001) meeting with Dr. Woodward, President Hinckley was not made aware of the current results of DNA tests on Native Americans; however, I think that any minder worth his salt would have made sure that he was fully aware soon after this interview. If you include the BYU research, at the time of the question by the German reporter, about 10,000 DNA tests had been carried out on Native Americans and about 99+% of their DNA was most closely related to Asian DNA. I suspect that another meeting with Dr. Woodward probably took place soon afterwards.
In the Spring of 2003 when the BYU Molecular Genealogy Project moved off campus they gave two reasons for their departure. One was that they had run out of space at BYU and the other was concerns expressed by non-Mormons that there may be a religious agenda to the project (http://deseretnews.com/dn/print/1,144...). This hasnt stopped BYU from doing archaeological research in the Americas and elsewhere in search of evidence to support the Book of Mormon. On the other hand perhaps this was the real reason or one of the reasons. Perhaps President Hinckley was concerned that it wouldnt look good to the outside community if the largest human DNA genealogy database in the world (by far) was in Mormon hands. However, I find it very tempting to believe that President Hinckley was also concerned about the results of the research, which by then he would have been aware of, and that he was also attempting to distance the church from any negative DNA reports coming from, God forbid, the Lords University.
I dont know the answers and I dont expect the people who know the truth to open up, but I am sure that with time the truth will come out, and I am happy to wait.
| | | Quotes From A Mar./06 National Geographic Article - The Greatest Journey Ever Told: The Trail Of Our Dna
Article Archived: Mar 6, 2006, at 07:32 AM
Stored Under Topic: DNA
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: FreeAtLast | | |
On p. 62:
"The human genetic code, or genome, is 99.9 percent identical throughout the world. What's left is the DNA responsible for our individual differences - in eye color or disease risk, for example - as well as some that serves no apparent function at all."
"...mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), is passed down intact from mother to child. Similarly, most of the Y chromosome, which determines maleness, travels intact from father to son."
"The accumulated mutations in your mtDNA and (for males) your Y chromosome are only two threads of a vast tapestry of people who have contributed to your genome. But by comparing the mtDNA and Y chromosomes of people from various populations, geneticists can get a rough idea of where and when those groups parted ways in the great migrations around the planet."
"Scientists now calculate that all living humans are related to a single woman who lived roughly 150,000 years ago in Africa, a "mitochondrial Eve." She was not the only woman alive at the time, but if geneticists are right, all of humanity is linked to Eve through an unbroken chain of mothers.
Mitochondrial Eve was soon joined by "Y" chromosome Adam," an analogous father of us all, also from Africa. Increasingly refined DNA studies have confirmed this opening chapter of our story over and over: All the variously shaped and shaded people of Earth trace their ancestry to African hunter-gatherers."
On p. 69:
Referring to molecular anthropologist Theodore Schurr of the Univ. of Pennsylvania:
"Schurr's specialty is the peopling of the Americas - one of the last and most contentious chapters in the human story. The subject seems to attract fantastic theories (Native Americans are the descendants of the ancient Israelites or the lost civilization of Atlantis) as well as ones tinged with a political agenda. The "Caucasoid" features of a 9,500-year-old skull from Washington State called Kennewick Man, for instance, have been hailed as proof that the first Americans came from northern Europe.
In fact most scientists agree that today's Native Americans descend from ancient Asians who crossed Siberia to Alaska in the last ice age, when low sea level would have exposed a land bridge between the two continents. But there's plenty of debate about when they came and where they originated in Asia.
For decades the first Americans were thought to have arrived around 13,000 years ago as the Ice Age eased, opening a path through the ice covering Canada. But a few archeologists claimed to have evidence for an earlier arrival, and two early sites withstood repeated criticism: the Meadowcroft Shelter in Pennsylvania, now believed to be about 16,000 years old, and Monte Verde in southern Chile, more than 14,000 years old.
The DNA of living Native Americans can help settle some of the disputes. Most carry markers that link them unequivocally to Asia. The same markers cluster in people who today inhabit the Altay region of southern Siberia, suggesting it was the starting point for a journey across the land bridge. So far, the genetic evidence doesn't show whether North and South America were populated in a single, early migration or two or three distinct waves, and it suggests only a rough range of dates, between 20,000 and 15,000 years ago."
--
For those readers who left the church more recently than I (my departure was in '92) and those Mormons who lurk on this board and are willing to respond, do many (most?) Mormons still believe that humanity started about 6,000 years ago?
DNA research has destroyed the keystone of the LDS religion: The Book of Mormon. The arch of Mormon faith has collapsed. The only thing keeping the LDS Church going is the belief of a decreasing portion of its membership that the BoM is true, the continued psychological manipulation of the church's patriarchal leadership, and of course, the church's great wealth, which is used to prop up the entire faηade.
| | | Another Mopologist Quote Run To Ground Re: DNA
Article Archived: Oct 23, 2006, at 07:39 AM
Stored Under Topic: DNA
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Jim Huston | | |
I have run into a mopologist quote about DNA a couple of times. Some of you are probably aware of the roots of this, but to me it is an example of the blatent dishonesty of the mopologists.
The article: In DNA, New Clues to Jewish Roots (New York Times, May 14, 2002)
The quote I was given is the following - Dr. Shaye Cohen of Harvard said:
"The authors are correct in saying the historical origins of most Jewish communities are unknown. With no evidence that modern Jewish mtDNA constitutes a valid control of the genetics of ancient Israel, claims of Israelite lineage cannot be either confirmed or denied based on DNA evidence."
Now - the part that Dr. Cohen said was:
"The authors are correct in saying the historical origins of most Jewish communities are unknown."
Dr. Cohen is a History and Religion professor and was asked about the communities in Russia that have been identified as having a Jewish heritage through DNA testing. He is simply saying we dont know how they ended up in the communities in Russia - there are no records or local legends. He is not saying that DNA is unreliable. His theory is Jewish merchant/traders.
Other scientists quoted in the article explain how through the mitochondrial DNA which carry very few signatures and the Y chromosome DNA, race origin can be effectively and accurately determined.
The second part of the quote, which the mopologists would like to attribute to Dr. Cohen was added:
"With no evidence that modern Jewish mtDNA constitutes a valid control of the genetics of ancient Israel, claims of Israelite lineage cannot be either confirmed or denied based on DNA evidence."
Was not from Dr. Cohen and is a flat out lie.
Here is an actual quote from the article:
"Geneticists use the Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA to track the movement of populations because each is passed unchanged from parent to child, escaping the genetic shuffle that occurs on the rest of genome between generations. Since the Y chromosome passes down only from father to son, and mitochondrial DNA is always inherited from the mother alone, the two elements serve to track the genetic history of men and women respectively."
The quote completely supports Dr. Southerton's position and the lecture/speach he gave at the conference.
|  | New DNA Study - Polynesian People Not Decended From Israelite - They Came From Taiwan
Article Archived: Jan 21, 2008, at 08:30 AM
Stored Under Topic: DNA
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Infymus | | |
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/wor...
For years I was taught that the Polynesian people got there from Hagoth, the BOM builder of ships. They WERE LAMANITES. They were not categorized under the "Black" rule, therefore could receive the Priesthood.
Wait a minute... Woops! No Israelite DNA in the Polynesian people... Looks like they came from Taiwan instead.
Don't you just hate it when your Cult teaches you for decades, and then suddenly one day retracts their statement with a brush off like it is no big deal? Suddenly decades of lessons you were taught to believe are wiped away and you are just expected to go along with it - no questions asked.
Mormonism, isn't it grand?!
The fact is that they were always encouraged to believe that they are Lamanites.
Polynesian dancing and singing was always the mainstay of the "Lamanite Generation" group at BYU.
General Authorities in the past always referred to Polynesians as Lamanites.
I personally know Polynesians who would "bear testimony" of their Lamanite heritage and the story of Hagoth.
Now, it's all an embarrassment for the Church. There will be no official retraction. There will be no official correction of incorrect doctrine.
As per the typical modus operandi of the LDS Church, there will be a hush and sweeping of traditional teachings under the rug. Remnants of the past generations of Polynesian Mormons will be allowed to continue talking to themselves about their Lamanite heritage. They will not be corrected or reprimanded by the Church leadership.
More importantly, though, they will also not be encouraged or supported in their traditional beliefs by the Church leadership. There will be no more talks by General Authorities that refer to Polynesians as Lamanites (except for the occasional aberration that may occur when a junior GA has failed to get the internal memo). There will be no more articles in Church publications that speak of Polynesians as Lamanites.
Eventually, the older generations of Polynesian Mormons will fade away and apologists will encourage their children to think that the stories about Hagoth and Lamanite heritage were just lovably kooky ideas that the older generation hatched themselves and that it was never doctrine or offical teaching of the LDS Church itself.
|  | Apologists About To Clash Over DNA
Article Archived: Mar 31, 2008, at 07:11 AM
Stored Under Topic: DNA
Outside Link To Article: RIGHT CLICK - COPY LINK LOCATION
Original Author Of Article: Simon Southerton | | |
A huge rift is about to be exposed in the DNA apologetics. A guy named Rod Meldrum has just started a tour of Utah giving presentations claiming DNA evidence in support of the Book of Mormon. This guy is generating a lot of interest with audiences reaching 500.
http://www.bookofmormonevidence.org
This guy is appealing to the traditional geography view held by most, which has the climactic battles in the Book of Mormon centered around the Great Lakes. You only need one Cumorah with his theory.
His interpretation of the DNA evidence; however, is deeply flawed. He evidently bases it largely on the presence of the X lineage, which occurs at it highest frequency in Algonquian tribes (Cree, Ojibwe, Cheyenne, Kickapoo, Shawnee etc.) from north eastern North America. There is an ancient version of the X lineage among the Druze from Israel. But a much more closely related X lineage has been found in the Altai from southern Siberia, the same population with the highest frequency of the A, B, C and D lineages.
Meldrum is speaking to audiences in LDS Stake Centres and LDS tabernacles (St George and Wellsville). His tour has all the appearances of being sanctioned by the church as senior leaders must have approved the use of church buildings.
The limited geography apologists will be furious.
In case there is any confusion, there are two Meldrum apologists and I don't think they are related.
Jeff Meldrom is an associate professor at Idaho State University, and a fan of Bigfoot. He appears in the recent FAIR DNA documentary.
Rod Meldrum is a self appointed "scientist" with a business and marketing degree from USU. He is the one claiming the X lineage is evidence of Jewish DNA in north eastern North America.
Both are way off base with the DNA, but most Mormons will swallow Rod's lies because it is what they want to hear.
| |
