DNA tests disprove Mormon scripture

[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?)

 

[climbhi]

A Quick Reply

Hmm, seems like little has changed around here over the past two years. This place is a lot bigger now, granted, but when I left to Brazil to serve as a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints two years ago I think we were still debating this topic. Honestly, I think its kind of funny.

I won't bother to make an elaborate argument here, I simply don't have the time (I have a QM test tommorow that I should really be studying for right now). But, there are just a few things that I wanted to mention:

First, I was suprised by how bitterly some of the people who have posted oppose the LDS church. Your comments were entirely unreasonable and, as far as I know, unprovoked. I just don't understand, why the bitterness? Making such flagrantly uneducated statements just damages the credibility of anything reasonable you might have pointed out. Leaders of my Church have emphasized repeatedly that church members treats others of different faiths with respect and civility. I don't see why others can't afford us the same luxury.

Second, The Book of Mormon does not claim that Lehi and his family were the only group of people ever to inhabit the early Americas. In fact, it specifically mentions other groups of people who migrated to the American continent (Jaredites, Mulokites, and others for example). In Christ's recorded dealings with Lehi's descendants, he suggests that there were many other groups of people on the American continent. And, perhaps most importantly, the book does not ever suggest that other groups of people could not have migrated to the Americas, it actually suggests the contrary in several instances.

I don't want to get into complex gentic evolution debates here-frankly that's way out of my league, biology never was my strong suit-but its seems to me that much of what quantumcarl posted would actually serve to confirm the Book of Mormon's validity. There are also many other evidences available for those wishing to "prove" the book's validity. I won't post them because they honestly don't interest me that much (that and I really need to get to my studies), but I'm sure you could easily find them on the internet.

To anyone interested in what Mormon scholars have said about reconciling science with religion, I would recommend the book "Reflections of a Scientist." It was written by Henry Eyring, a brilliant chemist (even the Nobel website has suggested he was one of the most deserving scientists ever to be skipped over for a Nobel) and also an outstanding member of the Church. In it he talks about how he doesn't see any need to reconcile, per se, religion and science. Rather, he shows how, to him, they are really just compliments of one another, eaching adding to and enriching the other.

To finish, I wanted to make a specific reply to SkyHunter's last post about religious arrogance. Mormon's do not claim to know "all" truth, and we certainly have not stopped seeking it nor stopped trying to learn more of it! It is part of our doctrine, in fact, that while on Earth no one can know "all" truth. Anyone familiar with Mormon scripture would tell you that it repeatedly emphasizes the importance of continually seeking after truth. That really is what we try to do-humbly seek after truth. That's why I'll be studying tonight for my Quantum test tommorow. That's also why I'll read in my scriptures tonight.

Also, I just do not see how you can call the "presumption" of knowing eternal truths and values arrogant. We do not claim to have discovered them, or found them out through reason or any other method. Mormon doctrine teaches that such knowledge was given to everyone by a loving and wise Heavenly Father who has knowledge of all things. Such knowledge can be added to through obedience and dilligence, or diminished-but never extinguished-by disobedience and rebellion.

I hope this helps you to understand a little better our beliefs. Perhaps you can help me better understand genetic evolution someday when I don't have a test to study for This really was meant to be a respectful post, and I hope it came off that way. If not, my apologies.

 

[Anttech]

Ahh, A mormon, welcome. And you were respectful, and as I have said before, mormons are in general nice people nowadays.

However within our post, you have not confronted the evidence, that is stacked up against the book of mormon claims. There is NO evidence anywhere outside your book that anyone traveled from the M.E. whatever you want to call them, Jaredites, Lehi... This is a Science forum, this is why we are looking at the claims of Mormons, with respect to Hard scienctific evidence, and it doesn't bode well for your book.

 

[kmarinas86]

Didn't man in general come from the Middle East or North Africa area? I know the Mormon and Scientific timelines don't match each other, but both ideas do speak of an origin of man from near or in the Middle East area, whether it's evolutionary migration or the artificial dispersion of people from their homeland. If we take the evolutionary approach, it is obvious that the first ancestors came from this area. The recent ancestors would be Asian. But they are all ancestors. If we knew our genealogy really well, nearly all of us (if not 100%) would be able to track our ancestry back to the Middle East or North Africa - that would be the farthest back to my knowledge. Humans of all races share over 99% of their DNA.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

Frankly, I doubt it. What you experienced was a drug.

 

[Anttech]

Frankly, I doubt it. What you experienced was a drug.

No what he eat/took was a Drug and what he experienced was a:

powerful religious experience

And Skyhunter my brother, I had the same :)

 

[SOS2008]

Didn't man in general come from the Middle East or North Africa area? I know the Mormon and Scientific timelines don't match each other, but both ideas do speak of an origin of man from near or in the Middle East area, whether it's evolutionary migration or the artificial dispersion of people from their homeland. If we take the evolutionary approach, it is obvious that the first ancestors came from this area. The recent ancestors would be Asian. But they are all ancestors. If we knew our genealogy really well, nearly all of us (if not 100%) would be able to track our ancestry back to the Middle East or North Africa - that would be the farthest back to my knowledge. Humans of all races share over 99% of their DNA.

Thank you for doing a better job of saying this than I did in my post. The African origin from which we all branched from is big news right now. You can buy a kit for $100 to find out how your ancestors migrated, and the more people who participate, the more refined the data can become. Still, I do not regard this 100% undisputed fact, but rather a strong theory.

 

[Evo]

Didn't man in general come from the Middle East or North Africa area? I know the Mormon and Scientific timelines don't match each other, but both ideas do speak of an origin of man from near or in the Middle East area, whether it's evolutionary migration or the artificial dispersion of people from their homeland. If we take the evolutionary approach, it is obvious that the first ancestors came from this area. The recent ancestors would be Asian. But they are all ancestors. If we knew our genealogy really well, nearly all of us (if not 100%) would be able to track our ancestry back to the Middle East or North Africa - that would be the farthest back to my knowledge. Humans of all races share over 99% of their DNA.

But that wouldn't apply here as the book of Mormon claims the migration happened 3500 BC straight from the Middle East. By that time, the "out of Africa" migration would have nothing to do with it.

 

[quantumcarl]

I don't want to get into complex gentic evolution debates here-frankly that's way out of my league, biology never was my strong suit-but its seems to me that much of what quantumcarl posted would actually serve to confirm the Book of Mormon's validity. There are also many other evidences available for those wishing to "prove" the book's validity.

Someone/thing erased my original reply to this post.

My main point was to urge the Mormon community to petition the Smithsonian Institute for any and all records and artifacts it has from the discovery that is described on the front page of the April 5th, 1909 edtion of the Phoenix Gazzette.

Remarkable Finds Indicate Ancient People Migrated From Orient: The latest news of the progress of the explorations or what is now regarded by scientists as not only the oldest archaeological discovery in the United States, but one of the most valuable in the world, which was mentioned some time ago in the Gazette was brought to the city yesterday by G.E. Kinkaid, the explorer who found the great underground citadel of the Grand Canyon during a trip from Green River, Wyoming, down the Colorado, in a wooden boat, to Yuma, several months ago.

According to the story related to the Gazette by Mr. Kinkaid, the archaeologists of the Smithsonian Institute, which is financing the expeditions, have made discoveries which almost conclusively prove that the race which inhabited this mysterious cavern, hewn in solid rock by human hands, was of oriental origin, possibly from Egypt, tracing back to Ramses.

Egypt and the Nile, and Arizona and the Colorado will be linked by a historical chain running back to ages, which staggers the wildest fancy of the fictionist. Under the direction of Professor S.A. Jordan, the Smithsonian Institute is now prosecuting the most thorough explorations, which will be continued until the last link in the chain is forged.

Nearly a mile underground, about 1480 feet below the surface, the long main passage has been delved into, to find another mammoth chamber from which radiates scores of passageways, like the spokes of a wheel. Several hundred rooms have been discovered, reached by passageways running from the main passage, one of them having been explored are 854 feet and another 634 feet.

This evidence and whether it is related to an Egyptian migration from 3500 bc may will help people to understand the origins of the Mormon belief in a tribe of Hebrews and their monothesiastic faith (sun god, "aten") arriving in America at that time, 1500 years before the Christian faith got started.

 

[Grogs]

But that wouldn't apply here as the book of Mormon claims the migration happened 3500 BC straight from the Middle East. By that time, the "out of Africa" migration would have nothing to do with it.

Your date is off by a few millenia. The BOM says Lehi's exodus took place shortly before the fall of Jerusalem, which has been dated to about 586 BCE. My copy actually states the Exodus took place in 600 BC, but I suspect that date was added by an editor, and not part of the original book.

@quantumcarl: I have to look at that story with a grain of salt. Surely, if the massive citadel/cave system is still there, you would expect countless archeologists from all over the SW United States would have explored it by now. It just seems too big for one group to cover up - it would require a conspiracy on a massive scale. I'm not saying that it *didn't* happen, just that it's odd that nobody in the past 100 years has followed up / been able to verify it.

 

[quantumcarl]

Your date is off by a few millenia. The BOM says Lehi's exodus took place shortly before the fall of Jerusalem, which has been dated to about 586 BCE. My copy actually states the Exodus took place in 600 BC, but I suspect that date was added by an editor, and not part of the original book.

@quantumcarl: I have to look at that story with a grain of salt. Surely, if the massive citadel/cave system is still there, you would expect countless archeologists from all over the SW United States would have explored it by now. It just seems too big for one group to cover up - it would require a conspiracy on a massive scale. I'm not saying that it *didn't* happen, just that it's odd that nobody in the past 100 years has followed up / been able to verify it.

All written accounts are subject to question and should be being taken with a grain of salt... whether its the Book of Mormon or the front page of the Phoenix Gazette from April 5th, 1909. Dating an exodus like the one Akenatenmoses initiated is tricky work that depends on oral and written record passed down over millenia. Accuracy is all but lost to the passing of time.

There have been many attempts to verify the Gazette story and all of them have returned with accounts of how the entrance to the "cave" described by Kincaid has been sealed with large boulders that reach well into the entrance.

There is also a ban on hiking in the area with risk of imprisonment and this "security" is in place under the guise of "public safety". You are allowed to climb the most dangerous cliffs in the US but just not the "dangerous" cliffs around the Temple of Isis in the Marble Canyon of the Grand Canyon.

Here is an account of where the site is. The author repeatedly warns against any attempt to follow his directions... as is required by law.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_orionzone_9.htm