Containing 5,709 Articles Spanning 365 Topics  
Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery  
Archives From 2005 thru 2014  
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.
Total Articles: 23
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
Wednesday, Jan 26, 2005, at 08:30 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: DNA   -Link To MC Article-
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
Wednesday, Feb 16, 2005, at 09:04 AM
Original Author(s): Simon Southerton
Topic: DNA   -Link To MC Article-
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 don’t know what Lehi, Sariah, Zoram, Ishmael, Ishmael’s wife, or Mulek’s genes look like.

Sure, we don’t 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, couldn’t 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?! We’ve 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 Indian’s 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 don’t 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
Tuesday, Mar 15, 2005, at 07:58 AM
Original Author(s): Dimmesdale
Topic: DNA   -Link To MC Article-
A HALF-PAGE article in the NY Times. (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
Thursday, Apr 14, 2005, at 07:51 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: DNA   -Link To MC Article-
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
Thursday, May 26, 2005, at 07:38 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: DNA   -Link To MC Article-
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?
Friday, Jun 17, 2005, at 07:42 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: DNA   -Link To MC Article-
for all those truly honest seekers of truth take a look here:

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:
  1. 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 DandC revelations generally refer to North American Indian populations as Lamanites?
  2. 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?
  3. 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?)
  4. 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?
  5. 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
Friday, Aug 12, 2005, at 08:47 AM
Original Author(s): Natalie R. Collins
Topic: DNA   -Link To MC Article-
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
Wednesday, Dec 21, 2005, at 09:04 AM
Original Author(s): Simon Southerton
Topic: DNA   -Link To MC Article-
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:-
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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 person’s 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 90’s 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 ( If it was such important work, why couldn’t 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 Hinckley’s 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 (; 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 hasn’t happened. That hasn’t been determined yet. All I can say is that’s speculative. No one really knows that, the answer to that. Not at this point.

I’ll 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 (,144...). This hasn’t 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 wouldn’t 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 Lord’s University.

I don’t know the answers and I don’t 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.
Mormon Church Responds To LA Times DNA Article
Thursday, Feb 16, 2006, at 01:05 AM
Original Author(s): Polygamy Porter
Topic: DNA   -Link To MC Article-

Nothing new, same old drivel from before.. man can't they come up with new material?:
The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ is exactly what it claims to be - a record of God's dealings with peoples of ancient America and a second witness of the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. The strongest witness of the Book of Mormon is to be obtained by living the Christ-centered principles contained in its pages and by praying about its truthfulness.

Recent attacks on the veracity of the Book of Mormon based on DNA evidence are ill considered. Nothing in the Book of Mormon precludes migration into the Americas by peoples of Asiatic origin. The scientific issues relating to DNA, however, are numerous and complex. Those interested in a more detailed analysis of those issues are referred to the resources below:
Then they list the same old two to three year old plausible crap from Sorenson, Whiting, Butler, and of course Lindsay.. notice how they tag on "Ph.D" on his name... LOL to try and add credibility... problem is that his Ph.D is not in Biology or Archeology.

They're playing a PR propoganda game that cannot possibly turn out well for them, at least for anybody who they are hoping to convert to the Morg by trying to convince them of the authenticity of the BOM. The only thing they hope to accomplish is to limit the damage to their current membership by appealing to their "faith" and get them to avoid like the plague, any thoghts that might plant even a seed of doubt in their minds and ignore the physical evidence, their own observations and reason.

DNA PeeNA. The Book of Mormon is true I tell you. The Book of Mormon is true. The Book of Mormon is true. The Book of Mormon is true. The Book of Mormon is true. The Book of Mormon is true. The Book of Mormon is true. The Book of Mormon is true. The Book of Mormon is true .. (clasps hands over ears, makes NAAA NAAA NAAA sound)
Quotes From A Mar./06 National Geographic Article - The Greatest Journey Ever Told: The Trail Of Our Dna
Monday, Mar 6, 2006, at 07:32 AM
Original Author(s): Freeatlast
Topic: DNA   -Link To MC Article-
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 façade.
Another Mopologist Quote Run To Ground Re: DNA
Monday, Oct 23, 2006, at 07:39 AM
Original Author(s): Jim Huston
Topic: DNA   -Link To MC Article-
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 don’t 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
Monday, Jan 21, 2008, at 08:30 AM
Original Author(s): Infymus
Topic: DNA   -Link To MC Article-

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
Monday, Mar 31, 2008, at 07:11 AM
Original Author(s): Simon Southerton
Topic: DNA   -Link To MC Article-
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.

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.
More DNA Hoopla From The Mormon Apologists
Wednesday, May 14, 2008, at 08:06 AM
Original Author(s): Merry Prankster
Topic: DNA   -Link To MC Article-
From Mormontimes:
Was Hebrew DNA recently found in American Indian populations in South America? According to Scott R. Woodward, executive director of Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, a DNA marker, called the "Cohen modal haplotype," sometimes associated with Hebrew people, has been found in Colombia, Brazil and Bolivia.

According to Woodward, the way critics have used DNA studies to attack the Book of Mormon is "clearly wrong." And it would be equally wrong to use similar DNA evidence to try to prove it.

This is because "not all DNA (evidence) is created equal," Woodward said.

It is the misuse of evidence that gave critics fuel to make their DNA arguments in the first place. According to Woodward, the critics are attacking the straw man that all American Indians are only descendants of the migrations described in the Book of Mormon and from no other source
Maybe this is the lawyer in me coming out, but I have always found it interesting how Mormon apologists seem to focus on certain issues while ignoring other core issues. True, the absense of DNA evidence to support the claims of the Book of Mormon is significant. But this is just one part of the case against the Book's validity.

In a civil law suit, a party must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence. This means that considering all of the evidence in a case that the party's claim is more probably true than not true. The evidence against the Book of Mormon does not rest just on DNA evidence. It rests on a number of different factors, including but not limited to, these factors:

First, Joseph Smith was viewed as a con man several years before any one had ever heard of the Book of Mormon. Affidavits gathered from 50 of Joseph Smith’s friends and neighbors establish beyond question that Joseph Smith and his family had a reputation in the Palmyra area as hunters for buried treasure. Prior to the time that he turned to religion, contemporaries of Joseph Smith consistently described him as glass looker (something of a confidence man much like Professor Marvel and his glass ball in the Wizard of Oz), whose chief source of income was hiring out to local farmers to help them find buried treasure by the use of folk magic and "seer stones."

Second, these affidavits accord with the fact that Smith was bound over for trial in 1826 on a charge arising out of Smith's treasure hunting scam. Also, the 1826 court proceeding directly contradicts Smith’s own statements in his 1838 history. In that history, Smith downplays his money digging activities. In particular, Joseph claims in his history that he persuaded upon Josiah Stowell to give up his hunt for treasure. In reality, court records indicate that Joseph gave up his money digging activities after being threatened with going to jail. The Smith family was known throughout the Palmyra region for their money digging activities and abilities with peep stones. Joseph Smith was recognized as the leading glass looker or peep stone seer in this region. It was because of Joseph’s reputation as a peep stone seer that Josiah Stowell traveled from his farm in southern New York next to the Pennsylvania border to Palmyra in order to hire Joseph to locate buried Spanish treasure on his farm through his peep stone. After many weeks of digging, Stowell’s family became alarmed that Mr. Stowell was squandering his money on Smith’s money digging escapades. These disgruntled members of the family of Josiah Stowell then filed charges against Joseph Smith in order to protect Stowell. A preliminary hearing on the charges was held. During the hearing, Joseph Smith confessed that he “pretended” to see things through his peep stone. Although the judge ordered Joseph bound over for trial, the judge also gave Smith “leg bail”, meaning that he allowed Joseph Smith to escape or “get out of town.”

Third, Joseph Smith produced his Book of Mormon "translation" by gazing at the same "seer stone" he had used in his earlier treasure hunting expeditions. According to all actual witnesses to the translation, he would place the stone into his hat, and then cover his face with it. One witness, Issac Hales, Emma Smith's father, states that this was exactly the same method that he witnessed Smith using to purportedly to find treasure on his treasure hunts.

Fourth, the gold plates were not even present when Smith was translating. During this time, the plates were supposedly hidden in the woods. This contradicts the many pictures produced by the Church that depict Joseph Smith examining the plates as he translated them. One wonders why the gold plates were even necessary except as a prop if Joseph “translated” the plates by burying his face in his hat and stared at a stone.

Fifth, Joseph Smith’s cover-up of the Josiah Stowell affair occurs in the same 1838 document in which he reports the First Vision. If Joseph Smith wasn’t truthful about his involvement with money digging and Josiah Stowell, why should we believe anything else in his 1838 account? Also, the 1826 incident occurred during the period when the Angel Moroni was supposedly tutoring Joseph in preparation for a great work that God had in store for him. Notably, some LDS apologists claim that this “trial” was an attempt to persecute Joseph. However, the court records say nothing about Joseph making any religious claims. The whole proceeding focused exclusively on Joseph’s money digging scams.

Sixth, the only persons who claimed to have actually seen the gold plates were eleven close friends of Joseph Smith (many of them related to each other). Their testimonies are printed in the front of every copy of the Book of Mormon. No disinterested third party was ever allowed to examine them. The angel later retrieved these plates at some unrecorded point. Most of the witnesses later abandoned Joseph Smith and left his movement. Joseph Smith then called them "liars." Many of these witnesses later said that they saw the plates with their “spiritual eyes” rather than their natural eyes. Contrary to the impression created by the witness statements published in the Book of Mormon, this means that these so-called witnesses did not physically handle the plates or other artifacts. (Joseph Smith wrote the two statements that they signed, some reluctantly.)

Seventh, the detailed history and civilization described in the Book of Mormon does not correspond to anything found by archaeologists anywhere in the Americas. The Book of Mormon describes a civilization lasting for a thousand years, covering both North and South America, complete with horses, elephants, cattle, sheep, wheat, barley, steel, wheeled vehicles, shipbuilding, sails, coins, and other elements of Old World culture. But no trace of any of these supposedly very common things has ever been found in the Americas of that period. Nor does the Book of Mormon mention many of the features of the civilizations that really did exist at that time in the Americas. The LDS Church has spent millions of dollars over many years trying to prove through archaeological research that the Book of Mormon is an accurate historical record, but they have failed to produce any convincing pre-Columbian archeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon story. (As an interesting side note, the Book of Mormon has these 100 or so newly arrived Nephite settlers building a temple "like unto" Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem only not as lavish. According to the Bible, the Temple of Solomon took over 50,000 slaves and workers seven years to complete.)

Eighth, the Book of Mormon presents the picture of a relatively homogeneous people, with a single language and communication between distant parts of the Americas, the pre-Columbian history of the Americas shows the opposite: widely disparate racial types (almost entirely east Asian - definitely not Semitic, as proven by recent DNA studies), and many unrelated native languages, none of which are even remotely related to Hebrew or Egyptian. Recent DNA studies conclusively show that the people of ancient America were not of Hebraic origin. Despite 150 years of claims by LDS Church leaders that the Book of Mormon took place over much of North, South and Central America, most LDS scholars now claim that the Book of Mormon covered a very limited geography and that the actual descendants of Lehi were very few in numbers.

Nineth, the people of the Book of Mormon were supposedly devout Jews observing the Law of Moses, but the Book of Mormon contains almost no trace that these people observed the Law of Moses or even had an accurate knowledge of it.

Tenth, although Joseph Smith said that God had pronounced the completed translation of the plates as published in 1830 "correct," many changes have been made in later editions. Besides thousands of corrections of poor grammar and awkward wording in the 1830 edition, other changes have been made to reflect subsequent changes in some of the fundamental doctrine of the Church. For example, an early change in wording modified the 1830 edition's acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity, thus allowing Smith to introduce his later doctrine of multiple gods. A more recent change (1981) replaced "white" with "pure," apparently to reflect the change in the Church's stance on the "curse" of the black race.

Eleventh, Joseph Smith said that the Book of Mormon contained the "fullness of the gospel." However, the teachings of the Book of Mormon on many doctrinal subjects have been ignored or contradicted first by Smith and then by the LDS Church leadership, and many doctrines now said by the Church to be essential are not even mentioned there. Examples are the Church's position on the nature of God, the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, polygamy, Hell, priesthood, secret organizations, the nature of Heaven and salvation, temples, proxy ordinances for the dead, Church organization and many other matters.

Twelth, many of the basic historical notions found in the Book of Mormon had appeared in print already in 1825, just two years before Smith began producing the Book of Mormon, in a book called View of the Hebrews, by Ethan Smith (no relation) and published just a few miles from where Joseph Smith lived. A careful study of this obscure book led B. H. Roberts, a General Authority and Church historian for many years who was known as the foremost authority on the Book of Mormon, to conclude that the evidence showed that the Book of Mormon was not an ancient record, but concocted by Joseph Smith himself, based on ideas he had read in the earlier book.

I don't know how obvious it has to be but considering all of these factors in their totality, there is only one reasonable conclusion -- Joseph Smith made the whole thing up.
Brigham Young University Scientists Prove Odds Of Finding Lamanite DNA Are Next To Zero
Sunday, Dec 28, 2008, at 09:14 AM
Original Author(s): Simon Southerton
Topic: DNA   -Link To MC Article-
In case you weren't aware, the latest interpretation of the Book of Mormon from FAIR and FARMS is that the tiny Lehite group entered massive native populations in the New World soon after their arrival. While such a scenario is at odds with widely accepted views derived from the Book of Mormon itself, it sits comfortably with the failure of scientists to find any DNA evidence of pre-Columbian Israelites entering the New World. It makes you wonder who’s leading who?

In order to prove that we should not expect to find any Lamanite DNA, BYU scientists have published a modelling paper to back this up.

Some notable quotes:

“Researchers should not expect to find many alleles from a small migratory group of 50 individuals in a large population today, even if sampling methods are exhaustive.” (Who could they possibly have had in mind?)

“Many studies advocate the use of mtDNA due to data collecting feasibility and other factors. However, because the mutation rate is generally higher in mtDNA, it could corrupt signal in studies addressing historic admixture, even when the time frame is relatively recent.” (I don’t know how this statement got through the review process. It is nonsense. The probability that a mtDNA lineage would be “corrupted” to the point that it was no longer distinguishable is vanishingly small.)

Because of the real possibility that a certain allele will have drifted to extinction, even sampling 100% of a population at a single locus may not reveal a single migrant allele, even if it was fixed in the migrant population. (Lamanite DNA could be gone altogether)

For some parameter sets, genetic data will not be adequate to detect historic admixture. In such cases, studies should consider anthropologic, archeological, and linguistic data where possible.

(i.e. go back to data that is open to all sorts of ridiculous interpretations)
Book Of Mormon Historists Still Kicking
Monday, Jan 5, 2009, at 07:58 AM
Original Author(s): Simon Southerton
Topic: DNA   -Link To MC Article-
One of the reasons I have been snoozing on the DNA front is that the Peterson-led apologetic procession has conceded that the Lehites made almost no contribution to the gene pool of American Indians. I think they made no contribution. We are almost agreed.

The upside for the apologists of retreating to this position is that they move to familiar turf. They can spin all sorts of new interpretations of Book of Mormon scriptural verses to accommodate the science because they are such serious scholars. They understand the book so much better than the prophets.

The most glaring problem of shrinking the Lehites is accounting for the vast numbers of Native Americans of Asian descent who clearly have lived in the New World for many thousands of years. If there were so many Native Americans there when Lehi arrived, how in the heck did the tiny Lehite group usurp control so quickly and why is the Book of Mormon silent about this remarkable takeover?

An excellent exchange on this very subject is taking place now in the MAD house under the heading “ When Lehi and his family landed in the New World, How did they become rulers?”

The exchange between Brant Gardner and JeffM is pure gold.
Latest Advances In DNA Proving Book Of Mormon is BS : Ancient Japanese DNA Linked With Native Americans
Thursday, Mar 26, 2009, at 08:50 AM
Original Author(s): Mootman
Topic: DNA   -Link To MC Article-
Recent scientific paper titled "Mitochondrial DNA Analysis of Jomon Skeletons From the Funadomari Site, Hokkaido, and Its Implication for the Origins of Native American" [sic], American Journal of Physical Anthropology, March 2009.

Ancient skeletons of the Jomon people, an ancestor to current day Japanese nation, were tested for markers from mitochondrial DNA. The 28 skeletons examined were determined to be buried about 3500 years ago.

One DNA fingerprint of particular note found in these skeletons was the D1 haplogroup. This haplogroup has been proven to be held in common with DUN-DUN-DUN --- That's right! Siberian populations and also predominates as one of the 4 main haplogroups of the founding Native American populations.

Just more evidence folks. The mountain of evidence is pretty freakin overwhelming. Know it. Love it. Breathe it in. {inhale.........} Mmmmm, that smells good. The smell of freedom, reason, and sanity. {ahhhhhhhhhhh....}
Tvedtnes And His Incorrect Correction
Monday, May 11, 2009, at 02:44 PM
Original Author(s): Simon Southerton
Topic: DNA   -Link To MC Article-
For the last decade John Tvedtnes has been one of the loudest and most incompetent DNA apologists. He has no formal training in molecular biology, but arrogantly pretends to be an authority on the subject. His errors were so apparent in a recent FAIR DVD (DNA and the Book of Mormon) that he was forced to make a public correction on the FAIR website. He understands the research so poorly that he can't even gets his corrections right.

In the DVD Tvedtnes claimed that (1) the X lineage had been found in Mesoamerica and came from Europe and (2) that the European N lineage had been found in the Americas. The DVD still contains these mistakes and is still sold by FAIR. Rather than correct the DVD FAIR has a link to an errata page where Tvedtnes' incompetent correction can be found. Notice how Tvedtnes, after a quick "correction", gets straight back into ignorant apologetic mode.

Error 1

Tvedtnes: I acknowledge that there are two parts of my interview that are problematic. The first is that, at the beginning, I said that haplogroup X is found in Mesoamerica, which is incorrect. Later on the DVD, I note that it is found in the eastern USA (and Canada, BTW), but "Mesoamerica" was incorrect. Also, the way I worded things made it sound like this was evidence for the Book of Mormon. It is, of course, not direct evidence, though it is true that the "brand" (as I put it) of X found in the New World is closer to that found in Europe and in the Middle East, where X is thought to have originated. Still, as I indicated in my later comments on the DVD, the likelihood is that the X of eastern North America came from Europe.

SGS: Tvedtnes is wrong again. The X lineage has been in the Americas for at least 15,000 years, a fact proven beyond doubt by Mormons Ugo Perego and Scott Woodward working at the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation. Stop the lies John. American Indian X lineages have been conclusively shown to be derived from Asia not Europe.

Error 2

Tvedtnes: I also made an inadvertent mistake in assuming that the haplogroup labeled "N" for remains of Great Basin Natives was also found in Europe. As it turns out, the Great Basin studies used "N" to denote samples of mitochondrial DNA that did not fall into the ABCD haplogroups and was intended to mean "none." The real importance of these and X in general is that more haplogroups have been discovered since the original ABC (which expanded to ABCD, then added X, with others unclassified and usually labeled "other"). This suggests that one cannot close the door on more such discoveries, as some of the critics suggest.

SGS: This was not an inadvertent mistake by someone who ordinarily gets things right. It is an error due to a lack of scientific understanding. The real significance of these N lineages was that they were not ABC or D. Most turned out to be the X lineage and in the last 10 years none of these "other" lineages has been shown to be connected to the Middle East.

There is no DNA evidence that supports the Book of Mormon. FAIR seems incapable of being honest about this.
FAIR About To Blast Haplogroup X Out Of The Waters Of Mormon, Or, Hapless Haplo Hounds Happily Hatcheting Hopeless Hoax
Monday, May 18, 2009, at 08:56 AM
Original Author(s): Simon Southerton
Topic: DNA   -Link To MC Article-
xFAIR is going after Rod Meldrum and his Great Lakes (Heartland) Geography. Meldrum is claiming that the X lineage in American Indians is evidence of a link to Israel.

Ugo Perego (Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation) will be speaking at an upcoming FAIR conference and presumably will sink haplogroup X for good.

Perego authored a scientific paper that shows conclusively that haplogroup X has been in the Americas for about 16,000 years.

The title of his talk. "Haplogroup X in Light of Recent Book of Mormon Claims"

I love watching these guys fighting over the decaying scraps of a hoax.
DNA "Proves" Evolution?
Monday, Jun 8, 2009, at 07:37 AM
Original Author(s): Wun Ettysebn Eye Cue
Topic: DNA   -Link To MC Article-
Well, in Science you don't so much as "prove" things as "confirm" them.

Any decently constructed scientific theory will have predictive power. It will predict what the outcome of certain investigations will turn up. If the investigation doesn't turn up what the theory predicts then, depending on how strongly the theory predicts, the theory can be disproven.

For example the "theory" that there was a large, steel-smelting, horse-riding, Hebrew/Egyptian-speaking, Jesus-worshipping civilization filling the land in the Americas and lasting a thousand years has been disproven rather conclusively based on the fact that after gazillions of man-hours searching every possible square foot of land no such trace of any such civilization has been found.

With Evolution there is the fossil record together with comparative anatomy which indepentently confirm the occurance of the process of evoution. What would be expected from comparative anatomy fits the location in strata of the fossils etc.

With the advent of DNA sequencing such things can be given other independent tests.

Three nucleotide bases in a DNA strand form what's called a "codon" and "code" for a specific amino acid. There are more possible codons than amino acids which are coded for. This allows for redundancy in coding for a given amino acid. More than one "codon" can code for the same amino acid.

If a codon for a given amino acid mutates to another codon for that same amino acid then there is no change in the organism it produces. The only difference will be on the molecular level in the DNA. However any such "mutation" will be transmitted to the next generation.

The fossil record and comparative anatomy suggest an evolutionary "tree" with a specific pattern of various species branching off from other pre-historic ancestors in the distant past. The details of this "evolutionary tree" are not completely settled by the fossil record and comparative anatomy etc. but its broad outline has been for decades.

Now that DNA analysis techniques have been devised there is another way to test the branching of the "tree of evolution." By following the pattern of redundant codons in the DNA of various species seeing which species use which codons for the same amino acid in which position of the DNA molecule the branching hypotheses can be tested.

Mutations of a codon to a redundant codon (coding the same amino acid) should be passed to all descendents up the tree. By studying the pattern of redundant codons in current species the tree-pattern can be inferred.

And, guess what, it fits the tree-pattern suggested by the fossils, comparative anatomy etc.

Now in a creationist scenario there is absolutely no reason for a creator to use redundant codons in such a pattern. If redundant codons were distributed randomly there would be no "tree pattern" suggested. The fact that the distribution fits A tree pattern confirms evolution. The fact that it fits the same tree pattern suggested by other branches of study is extremely compelling. There is no reason a creator would use such a distribution UNLESS the creator wanted us to believe there was such a pattern of evolution.

Any creationist who truly believes in and reveres their creator would, therefore, be a heretic if they denied evolution since the creator clearly meant for them to believe it.
Haplogroup X And Native Americans
Wednesday, Aug 5, 2009, at 11:40 AM
Original Author(s): Sl Cabbie
Topic: DNA   -Link To MC Article-
Here's the quote:
"Some LDS scholars suggest that haplogroup X2a-found exclusively in northern North America-could be a proof of Lehi's genetic legacy, but at this time there is not enough data to support these conclusions. Reidla and colleagues in 2003 began exploring the origin and distribution of haplogroup X among the world populations and they concluded that "phylogeography of the subclades of haplogroup X suggests that the Near East is the likely geographical source for the spread of subhaplogroup X2." Regarding the presence of a few sequences belonging to haplogroup X found in the Altai population of central Asia, the authors commented that "under the assumption that these sequences are a random sample of the Altaian haplogroup X [they provide a] a time depth of <6700 years, and it would suggest that Altaians have acquired haplogroup X2 only relatively recently." In other words, haplogroup X2 in modern Asian populations is NOT ancestral to haplogroup X2 found in Native Americans. Reidla and colleagues concluded that "the few Altaian and Siberian haplogroup X lineages are not related to the Native American cluster, and they are more likely explained by recent gene flow from Europe or from West Asia."

"Much can still be said about haplogroup X2 in the Americas. In our paper, two sub-branches of the Native American haplogroup X2a have been classified as X2a1 with an estimated age of 9200-9400 years and as X2a2 with an estimated age of 2300-3800 years. A possible third X2a sub-branch (X2a3?) was identified among the indigenous groups of British Columbia in Canada, but there is not sufficient data at this time to confirm this hypothesis. Furthermore, we reported in this paper the discovery of a previously unidentified X2 lineage in an Ojibwa sample - which we named X2g - that has never been previously observed in Native American populations or elsewhere.

"Lastly, a paper published on PLoS One in 2008 (Shlush et al.) provides important clues about the possible origin of haplogroup X: "No population or geographic region has been identified to date, in which haplogroup X and its major subhaplogroups are found at both high frequency and high diversity, which could provide a potential clue as to their geographic origin. Here we suggest that the Druze population of northern Israel may represent just such a population."

"Our paper in Current Biology does not discuss (and does not dismiss) a potential ancient origin for haplogroup X in the ancient Near East, as proposed by Shlush and Reidla (and their co-authors, including important names in population genetics such as Michael Hammer, Doron Behar, Toomas Kivisild, Richard Villems, Antonio Torroni, Alessandro Achilli, etc.), but we emphasize how this haplogroup marked a separate migratory event that characterized the history of Native American populations. Apart from anyone who believes haplogroup X to be the ultimate proof marking the arrival of Lehi's group to the Americas (something that neither Woodward, nor myself advocate), the bottom line is that there is still much to research about the origin and dispersal of this and the other pre-Columbian lineages."
The entire article can be found here:

I expect Simon will have something to say by this weekend; in the meantime, I'll give it a go and point out a few obvious distortions . . .

To borrow their methodology and engage in ad hominems, this sort of bullshipping is consistent with FAIR's tactics; they range from innuendo to outright dishonesty with a couple of shell games tossed in for good measure.

They aren't even particularly good shell games . . .

Perego's first strawman . . .
The use of the word "discovering" is interesting in the opening sentence of Southerton's remarks. It appears that Southerton deliberately wants to give the impression to those who are unfamiliar with studies in population genetics that he is the one to first discover a genetic link between Native Americans and Asian populations.
That's pure deformed Petersonese; Simon made no claim as to the origins of his findings, and those of who've read his book know that he merely reviewed the published findings of other DNA scientists and found them at absolute odds with BOM accounts.

Here's another common tactic that reflects FAIR's dissembling....
None of these studies on Native Americans, including the current one published in January 2009 in Current Biology were designed to address the Lamanite/Book of Mormon issue. Data for this study were collected and analyzed with the objective of shedding new light about the origins of Paleo-Indians; not to identify additional migratory events in the following millennia and the role they may have played in re-shaping the genetic pool already existing in America's double continent.
In other words, we're not talking about mythical Lamanites; we're doing real science here folks . . . The shell game is that there is no evidence--repeat zero evidence--of Israelis in the New World, and it's disingenuous for them to mention this situation.

Moreover, Perego admitted that extensive DNA testing in South America (Peru, primarly, as I recall; yep, there it is further down) failed to turn up any X-haplogroups (Simon believes they may eventually be found); it was clear they were looking for BOM evidence and found none (not only no X haplogroup, but no other Middle Eastern haplogroups as well).

Why ever would they have done so much DNA testing in those areas? Inquiring minds want to know . . . Unfortunately there is a dead guy who isn't talking . . .

More utter bullshit . . .
Despite Southerton's continued efforts to discredit the professional integrity of institutions and/or individuals affiliated with the LDS faith, the debate about the origin of Native American populations is still wide open as demonstrated by the great amount of scholarship that scientists from different fields are still producing today.
The origins of Native American populations is not open to debate. The wheres, hows, and whens of their arrival in North America are being nailed down slowly, and there is debate on those . . .

Lehi's voyage is an untter myth, as anyone with any reasonable knowledge of maritime sailing technology circa 600 B.C. would realize. Perego needs to enroll in a remedial geography course.

But he's right in there, bearing his testimony, nevertheless...
As a scientist and as a member of the LDS faith, I find no difficulties in reconciling my scientific passion about Native American history with my religious beliefs. I am not looking for a personal testimony of the Book of Mormon in the double helix.
In many circles, this statement would be tantamount to an academic suicide note.

For reasonable sorts, here is the 2001 link showing the discovery of Haplogroup X among the Altai in Southern Siberia. As I understand this one, it's much more closely related to North American X-groups than any found in the Near East, and it demonstrates the presence of X in Siberia at the time a small population embarked on a migration across Berinigia. Other relatives of these individuals were among the ancestors of today's Altai . . .
Despite a shared consensus RFLP haplotype, substantial genetic differences exist between the American Indian and European haplogroup X mtDNAs.

Recently, the mtDNA studies have shown that both northern and southern Altaians exhibit all four Asian and American Indian-specific haplogroups (A-D) with frequencies of 57.2% (Sukernik et al. 1996) and 46.8% (Derenko et al. 2000a), respectively, exceeding those reported previously for Mongolians, Chinese, and Tibetans. Therefore, they may represent the populations which are most closely related to New World indigenous groups. Since the detection of all four haplogroups (A-D) in an Asian population is thought to be a first criterion in the identification of a possible New World founder, the candidate source population for American Indian mtDNA haplotypes therefore may include the populations originating in the regions to the southwest and southeast of Lake Baikal, including the Altai Mountain region (Derenko et al. 2000b). The presence of X mtDNAs in Altaians is generally consonant with the latter conclusion.
The article by Ugo Perego at the link above is quite old. Perego knows that the X lineage in American Indians is NOT derived from Hebrews who arrived in the Americas a few thousand years ago. He is in the limited geography camp on the side of the Brethren (and of course FAIR) and not a supporter of the heartland geography promoted by Meldrum.
FAIR's Silly Straw Man Against Southerton
Monday, Nov 2, 2009, at 08:04 AM
Original Author(s): Jesus Smith
Topic: DNA   -Link To MC Article-
In stamping on Southerton's work, FAIR claims:
"In their more candid moments, the ex-Mormon critics admit that their criticisms require that the key assumption of 'only Lehi' be made."

While I can't speak for Simon (but I am sure he never made this "Lehi only" assumptions in all of his analysis)...As an exMo critic, I'll comment candidly that without this so-called assumption of "only Lehi" the DNA evidence still invalidates the BoM.


Short answer: DNA testing is sensitive enough to show if there were any groups of significant size (diluted or not) from regions across the globe.

Long answer:

Even if there were large indigenous Siberian populations, the BoM purports to be written about a large group of people, of whom:

1) the Lamanites (Manasseh descendants--Alma 10:3, 1 Ne. 5:14) are at least or more than half of the population of the BoM peoples

2) the Lamanites are the surviving group in modern times of those who the BoM is written (DandC 3; 28; 30; 49)

3) the introduction says one of the main purposes of the BoM is "written to the Lamanites" and to show the Lamanites "what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers"

Apologists tell us that without Lehi's DNA, we cannot conclude that we can match to his DNA. The dilution is just too high, they say, whether hemispheric or vanishing geography is assumed. But scientists already work on the assumption that we cannot go back to the DNA of the original ancestors. So they work on classifying likeliness of descent.

For example, in this year's survey of much of the DNA results, summarized at:

Scientist were able to hone into specific groups of ancestor communities, give timelines and show that all DNA collected in Amerindians point to a single ancestral migration point from Siberia more than 10,000 yrs ago. They tested 33 groups of Asia and were able to rule out all but one as the source for ancestral DNA in Amerindians (18 migratory groups tested from Alaska to S. America).

That's very regionally specific.

If they can narrow the results of all diverse groups of Amerindians to a tiny region in n. Asia, then finding a connection to middle east, Arab, Semitic, Hebrew, European, whatever... should be a cake walk. But they don't find any connection other regions, specific or general. One apologist argued to me that perhaps we just haven't tested the right Amerindian DNA yet. But I thought they had been diluted. Which is it? Dilution or highly localized? Apologists would like it muddied both ways, all the while claiming that we will never find the DNA to prove the BoM because it happened too long ago.

In fact, autosomal and mitochondria DNA testing has been so sensitive that it can find several final and very specific migratory places of a single family line as old as 10,000 years ago. A 2006 study reports DNA-based research linking DNA retrieved from a single 10,000-year-old fossilized tooth from an Alaskan island, with specific coastal tribes in Tierra del Fuego, Ecuador, Mexico, and California. Unique DNA markers found in the fossilized tooth were found only in these limited and specific coastal tribes, and were not comparable to markers found in any other indigenous peoples in the Americas. (Ref: “Genetic analysis of early Holocene skeletal remains from Alaska and its implications for the settlement of the Americas”, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 132(4), 605-621 (2007).)

If one can use a single 10,000 year old tooth to link very small groups that migrated from tip to tip across two continents (similar to claims in Hel. 3:8), surely one can find DNA matching mid-east/Hebrew lines from groups claimed to have filled all land in both continents and still existing from the Navajo to the Ecuadorians (Hinckley in 1997 and 99).

There's no need for critics to claim a "Lehi-only" assumption in the least. DNA testing is far more sensitive than apologists would like to admit.
Still No Trace Of Hebrew DNA In Native Americans
Friday, Nov 30, 2012, at 11:50 AM
Original Author(s): Amos
Topic: DNA   -Link To MC Article-
Scientists identify genes of Native American who lived 1000 years ago in modern group of 80 Icelanders:
"Research indicates that a woman from the North American continent probably arrived in Iceland some time around 1000AD leaving behind genes that are reflected in about 80 Icelanders today."
And it was known archeologically long before DNA. And the Bering Straight migration was known long before DNA, then new evidence simply corroborated the old evidence.

BoM evidence is doing exactly the opposite (except for tabloid non-evidence circulated in TBM echo chambers).

The evidence gets further from the BoM with each step.

What I hate is the church's illogical apologetic argument that "nothing in the BoM precludes migrations by peoples of Asian descent" or something like that, basically walking both rails by saying yes the DNA evidence itself is reliable but the interpretation regarding the BoM is "ill considered".

But the logical necessity of they're OWN argument would be "nothing in the DNA evidence precludes migrations by peoples of other-than-Asian origins". But that's exactly the whole DNA point, that ALL native Americans are consistantly descended from as little as ONE Bering Straight migration, in a tight relationship, and NO EXCEPTION has EVER been found throughout the Americas.

The Book of Mormon claims a Lehite population in the millions covering a thousand years. No trace of it in archeology or DNA. And here we have as little as one individual emmigrant echoing 1,000 years later.

How to navigate:
  • Click the subject below to go directly to the article.
  • Click the blue arrow on the article to return to the top.
  • Right-Click and copy the "-Guid-" (the Link Location URL) for a direct link to the page and article.
Archived Blogs:
DNA Research And Mormon Scholars Changing Basic Beliefs
Answering The DNA Apologetics
New York Times Article On DNA And Geneaology
DNA Project To Trace Human Steps
North America Settled By Just 70 People, Study Concludes
Does DNA Evidence Really Blow The Book Of Mormon Out Of The Water?
No More DNA for Mormons
More On Hinckley And Woodward
Mormon Church Responds To LA Times DNA Article
Quotes From A Mar./06 National Geographic Article - The Greatest Journey Ever Told: The Trail Of Our Dna
Another Mopologist Quote Run To Ground Re: DNA
New DNA Study - Polynesian People Not Decended From Israelite - They Came From Taiwan
Apologists About To Clash Over DNA
More DNA Hoopla From The Mormon Apologists
Brigham Young University Scientists Prove Odds Of Finding Lamanite DNA Are Next To Zero
Book Of Mormon Historists Still Kicking
Latest Advances In DNA Proving Book Of Mormon is BS : Ancient Japanese DNA Linked With Native Americans
Tvedtnes And His Incorrect Correction
FAIR About To Blast Haplogroup X Out Of The Waters Of Mormon, Or, Hapless Haplo Hounds Happily Hatcheting Hopeless Hoax
DNA "Proves" Evolution?
Haplogroup X And Native Americans
FAIR's Silly Straw Man Against Southerton
Still No Trace Of Hebrew DNA In Native Americans
5,709 Articles In 365 Topics
TopicImage TOPIC INDEX (365 Topics)

  · BOB MCCUE - SECTION 1 (25)
  · BOB MCCUE - SECTION 2 (25)
  · BOB MCCUE - SECTION 3 (25)
  · BOB MCCUE - SECTION 4 (25)
  · BOB MCCUE - SECTION 5 (25)
  · BOB MCCUE - SECTION 6 (19)
  · BOY SCOUTS (22)
  · BOYD K. PACKER (33)
  · BRIAN C. HALES (1)
  · BRUCE C. HAFEN (4)
  · CALLINGS (11)
  · COMEDY - SECTION 1 (24)
  · COMEDY - SECTION 2 (21)
  · COMEDY - SECTION 3 (24)
  · COMEDY - SECTION 4 (22)
  · COMEDY - SECTION 5 (37)
  · DALLIN H. OAKS (100)
  · DANITES (4)
  · DAVID A. BEDNAR (23)
  · DAVID O. MCKAY (8)
  · DAVID R. STONE (1)
  · DNA (23)
  · DON JESSE (2)
  · EMMA SMITH (5)
  · FARMS (30)
  · GEORGE P. LEE (1)
  · HAROLD B. LEE (1)
  · HAUNS MILL (2)
  · HBO BIG LOVE (12)
  · HOLIDAYS (13)
  · HUGH NIBLEY (13)
  · HYMNS (7)
  · JAMES E. FAUST (7)
  · JOHN GEE (3)
  · JOHN L. LUND (3)
  · JUDAISM (3)
  · JULIE B. BECK (6)
  · L. TOM PERRY (5)
  · LAMANITES (36)
  · MARRIOTT (2)
  · MASONS (16)
  · MICHAEL R. ASH (26)
  · MITT ROMNEY (71)
  · NAUVOO (3)
  · ORRIN HATCH (10)
  · PARLEY P. PRATT (11)
  · PAUL H. DUNN (5)
  · PRIMARY (1)
  · PROPOSITION 8 (21)
  · QUENTIN L. COOK (11)
  · SEMINARY (5)
  · SHERI L. DEW (3)
  · TALKS - SECTION 1 (1)
  · TIME (4)
  · TITHING - SECTION 1 (25)
  · TITHING - SECTION 2 (25)
  · TITHING - SECTION 3 (13)
  · UGO PEREGO (5)
  · UK COURTS (7)
  · VAN HALE (16)
  · VIDEOS (30)
Copyright And Info
Articles posted here are © by their respective owners when designated.

Website © 2005-2021

Compiled With: Caligra 1.119