Talk:Genetics and the Book of Mormon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of genetic genealogy, genetics-based population history, and associated theory and methods. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is part of Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject, an attempt to provide comprehensive and detailed information about the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism on Wikipedia. To participate in the project, edit this article, visit the List of articles about the Latter Day Saint movement, the project page, and/or join the discussion. For writing guidelines about contributing to the project, you may want to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints)
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Addressed serious WP:NOR and WP:NPOV issues

I had to do a major revision, mainly removing some egregious original research and partisan NPOV violations. Keep in mind people, this is not the place to try to establish a controversial argument as fact. Please read WP:OR and WP:NPOV; and please discuss restoring any of this material here if you want to do so, to address the significant reasons given for their removal.

My revisions are explained below, by section:

[edit] Rebuttal of LA Times report by William Lobdell

I kept the first part of this. Subsequent parts were removed because they were marked by argumentative, facially POV tone: "Lobdell seems to believe... Actually, ..." "Some of this may be..."

I put the Q-P36 bit into neutral terms and added some referenced material, while leaving it in.

In reference to this section, "Followup of genetic claims in the media," what is this section even doing here? I don't seen any reason to keep it as it has nothing to do with genetic studies and the Book of Mormon. The section doesn't answer any questions or present any facts, instead it just echoes the common discussion of assumed inerrancy (or not) of the Book of Mormon... The layout is also troubling to me, it seems like the many and various problems with Murphy's conclusions (based on his own thinking, not any kind of research) are buried in another section farther down. I think the general argument and the LDS responses (which are solid academically) should be summarized in this section, rather than giving one view preference over the other. gdavies 07:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rebuttal of specific statements made by Thomas Murphy

I left in part of this, but removed parts that violated both NOR and NPOV, such as:

"Thus the current theories are more in tune with the Jaredite colonization of America as described in the Book of Ether than were earlier theories..."

This is bad science and bad Mormon doctrine. It conflicts directly with the BoM introduction, which says the "Lamanites", not Jaredites, are the principal ancestors of the American Indians.

Furthermore, the Book of Mormon says that "The Jaredite nation is utterly destroyed" (Ether chapter 15). Kind of hard for an "utterly destroyed" nation to become the main ancestors of later inhabitants of the land.

Finally, the Jaredites came from Mesopotamia in the first place (assuming face value for the brief reference to the Jaredites departing after the tower of Babel), and should have been genetically similarly Middle Eastern with the Nephites & Lamanites. Genetic affinity between Native Americans and central Asians - i.e., the region around the Altay Mountains, as indicated by nearest genetic similarity - does nothing at all to support the claim that "the Book of Ether is now more in line with the scientific mainstream than before the advent of DNA identification technology."

Evidently this article hasn't received a lot of attention, though it's a very commonly discussed subject. As to "the Jaredite nation" being utterly destroyed... a side note by John L Sorenson in The Years of the Jaredites:
Of course the "end of the Jaredite people" by no means indicates that all Jaredites were wiped out. That would be far-fetched. There is solid evidence in the Book of Mormon itself, and certainly more from archaeology, indicating that remnants of the old population survived in various spots after the final organized battle. The scripture only talks, after all, of the destruction of the Jaredite people as a social entity, not the extinction of the entire population. Why the later Nephite account does not take more account of the Jaredite remnants could be treated at some length, but not here.
Although more evidence would be useful, it's evident that Sorenson has found a Jaredite genetic contribution to the Nephites and/or Lamanites plausible (though by no means the bulk of genetic material). gdavies 06:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Another thing I think is important to point out, the Book of Mormon points to the Lamanites as the "principal ancestors of the American Indians," but does not discuss the ancestry of the Lamanites. A Lamanite group considerably composed of remnants of the Jaredites would not directly contradict this statement... I'm not saying that I support it, but the question regarding Native American (and Lamanite) ancestry is much more open than I used to think... gdavies 23:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Principal Ancestors

Violated NOR.

[edit] Descent from Lehi

The POV material not only did original research, but specifically contradicts its scientific source, saying that "Even though Underhill rejected the idea that Q-M3 is that young (i.e. 2147 years old), it could still be that most men with the Q-M3 lineage are descended from a single male who lived 150 years before Christ." In fact, Underhill cited that figure as one of several previous estimates from the literature, with other estimates ranging up to 32,000 years; he had good reason to reject the estimate of 2147 years. The POV material cherry-picked the one favorable date and asserted it as fact ("The result indicated that the M3 mutation had occurred only 2147 years before").

[edit] The Lemba have no Semitic MtDNA

OR, contradicts scientific research.

[edit] Statements by Murphy

Purely ad hominem attack that is irrelevant to "Genetics and the Book of Mormon". Maybe rewrite and add to the Thomas Murphy article.

- Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 07:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Again, with the NPOV

A lot of good information has been added lately: [1]. Unfortunately these changes also contain a lot of a priori cherrypicking along the lines of "you can't prove there's not an invisible pink dragon in my garage". These arguments might be fine if you're writing an "Intelligent Design" tract, but they are written from a very transparent and partisan agenda and therefore violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.

Additionally, considering the extensive discussion that already addresses some of these points here in the talk page, changes along these lines would have a better chance of approaching WP:NPOV and WP:NOR if they were discussed here and the previous discussion responded to. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/ub/w:s/w:l) 02:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed image(s)

Certian images have been removed by me because they have been added to a category that makes them speediable, most likely Category:Images with no copyright tag. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 17:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Limited Geography Model

I added a citation request regarding the Limited Geography Model. The paragraph implies that the LGM was created in response to the genetic challenge. In reality it has been around for many years, and it was formalized in Sorenson's book "An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon" in 1985. LDS Scholars have been using this model for years, although the general church population is often not aware of it and naturally tends to believe the Hemispheric Geography Model. It is, however, incorrect to imply that the LGM was created in response to the genetic challenge. It is true that the LGM is used as a response to the genetic challenge. Bochica 04:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nephites and Lamanites in the Book of Mormon

Forcing myself to not do a wholesale revision of this section as it stands, I'd like to point out that the terms "nephite" and "lamanite" lost their bloodline connotation relatively early in the Book of Mormon. With dissenters and the absorption of the Mulekites (and presumably other peoples) and even Jacob's early description of the terms found in Jacob 1:13-14

13 Now the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites.
14 But I, Jacob, shall not hereafter distinguish them by these names, but I shall call them Lamanites that seek to destroy the people of Nephi, and those who are friendly to Nephi I shall call Nephites, or the people of Nephi, according to the reigns of the kings.

This gives us Lamanites (including Lamanites, Lemuelites, some Ishmaelites and Zoramites, whoever fought against the "nephites") and the Nephites (Nephi's family, Jacob and Joseph's, possibly some Ishmaelites and/or Zoramites and later Mulekites). Already it's obvious that the main concern was not so much descent but affiliation. gdavies 06:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Counter-rebuttal: relative contribution of believed Hebrew ancestry

This paragraph currently seems to hinge on an interpretation of the word "principal" as generally supportive of the hemispheric model by meaning "most," or "largest part." I, and many other people in the LDS community, define principal as "first" or "main," which would count the statement in the Book of Mormon true (principal ancestors), not go against what leaders have said (interpreting "principal" to mean "main"), and generally support the LGM. I think this distinction needs to be made in the article... gdavies 16:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Q-P36 genetic haplotype as evidence linking Hebrew and Native American DNA

It is traditionally held that the "lost tribes" of Israel were taken to the North and possibly as far a Siberia. These tribes would be genetically similar to the tribes of Ephraim & Manasseh of the book of mormon.

Also the "Jews" were forced from the lands of their herritage and only have recently returned. The majority of people living in the middle east would not match the original Israelites very closely.

What I'm getting at is: Wouldn't a strong correlation between the genetics of the Native americans and Siberians prove the point the LDS church makes? --Evan Davis 00:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure... on the flip side, a lack of strong correlation between modern Jews and modern Native Americans absolutely doesn't prove anything. The Book of Mormon doesn't describe a group going through siberia to the New world, although perhaps both groups (modern Native Americans and the people described in the Book of Mormon) could possibly have a common ancestor? I haven't looked at this much, but clearly we don't have enough evidence to make any conclusions whatsoever based off of genetics. Some have argued for a Jaredite link to Siberian-Asian DNA, and remnants of the Jaredites being intermarried with Laman's descendants (also accounting for their darker skin)... it's a stretch but it could answer some questions...
Another random idea... we don't know who was in Mulek's group, or what of what descent they were. There's definitely a possibility that people joined Mulek's group along the way. gdavies 02:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
What I was saying was that science tells us that the people of the Americas may have a common ancestry with people from Siberia. If the lost ten tribes were taken north into that country it would explain the common origin (Israel) of both peoples.
As far as the Jaredite link goes, nowhere in the Book of Mormon does it expressly speak of Jaredite stragglers and if they intermingled with the Nephites or not. So their guess is as good as mine.
Mulek was one of the sons of the king Zedekiah who I think was a decendent of Judah.
I'm going to spend some time looking at the ojectivity of this article and see if there is a better way to write it that doesn't lend authority to speculation on either side. --Evan Davis 00:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LDS researchers compare existing genetic evidence with the Book of Mormon story

I find this section misleading, basically we have two disaffected Mormons (who are likely underqualified) portrayed as "what LDS scholars think." Very disingenuous portrayal, I'm going to make an edit pointing out these are fringe players and by no means represent the gist of LDS scholarship. gdavies 21:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed section "Rebuttal of specific statements made by Thomas Murphy"

Thomas Murphy has made statements to the effect that DNA research indicates that the ancestors of Native Americans came from North East Asia. [2] This conflicts with modern findings indicating that the closest genetic match to Native Americans is in central Asia, around the area of the Altay Mountains, as noted above. Prevailing theory also holds that the peopling of America was accomplished by one to three migration events rather than a continuous flow of people from Eastern Siberia. (PNAS 28 August 2001 10244–10249 vol. 98 no. 18)

This really has nothing to do with the article. Perhaps it belongs in a Thomas Murphy article, perhaps in an article on Native Americans, but genetics and the Book of Mormon? I'm removing it. 213.80.115.15 15:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additions regarding a physical change in DNA

There are some issues with the following statements:

"This physical change, which was carried from generation to generation, obviously included an alteration in the genetic makeup of the Lamanites."

We cannot use the word "obviously" here. The BoM contains no explicit information that allows us to conclude that a genetic change took place. The best we could do here is to find some scholar who makes a case for this and then cite him.

"Since the Book of Mormon teaches that the Lamanites are the principle ancestors of the American Indians, it is very likely that a Native American may share very few genetic markers with those of Israelite ancestry."

This statement is incorrect. The only place that "principal ancestors of the American Indians" is mentioned is in an introduction added in 1981. The original 1830 BoM makes no mention of this, therefore the BoM does not teach this.

"If the Book of Mormon is taken to be a true account, the alteration of the Lamanites' Israelite DNA shortly after their arrival in America from Jerusalem may preclude any attempts at genetic linkage."

Again, we can't include this assumption and state it as a fact. If a scholarly article can be located in which some evidence of this can be presented, then we could include that.

[edit] The problem of a genetic approach

I looked at the suggestions above, and added both a sentence at the end of this section and references to two scriptures. I don't know about scholarly citations -- I'll have a look. Let me know what you think, because I'm new to this. Here's the new sentence:

The Lamanites and Nephites were still physically distinct several generations later,[9] suggesting that the physical change may have included alteration of DNA.

--Mstanner 06:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I'm still quite new at this myself. :-). If I understand Wikipedia policy correctly, the second part of the sentence probably constitues what they call "original research." In other words, it we can find a source that supports it, we can include it, but we can't draw the conclusion on our own. I'll take a look and see what I can find as well. Bochica 02:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm following up on my comment above from April. I've moved this entire section here as potential original research. I am unable to find any source to cite which supports the idea that the Lamanites DNA was actually altered. In addition, the last paragraph (cite request since August), makes no sense and simply exists to refute the speculative paragraph above it.

Certain passages of the Book of Mormon suggest that it would be impossible to support or refute the claims of the Book or Mormon with DNA evidence. After the children of Lehi separated into the Nephites and the Lamanites, the Lord changed the physical appearance of the Lamanites to discourage intermarriage between the believing Nephites and the unbelieving Lamanites.(2 Nephi 1:11). The Lamanites and Nephites were still physically distinct several generations later (Alma 3:6). Although it is not known how the Lord accomplished the change in appearance of the Lamanites, according to science, a physical change represented in a population would have to be accompanied by a change in DNA. With the Lamanites skin being changed to a darker color to separate them from their brethren, it is not known how extensively their DNA was altered. Although one might counter that just the portion of DNA that controls skin color was changed, LDS people may support the idea that we do not know the complete designs of God, and any alteration could have been possible, even simply to leave the question unanswered by science and for believers of the the Book of Mormon to rely more on faith. The whole issue is complicated by Lamanite and Nephite intermarriage and how the Lamanites destroyed the Nephites. Since we don't know how much of pure Israelite DNA was passed on from the Lamanite's Israelite progenitors, the whole issue of DNA evidence sees an impossibility to support or refute the Book of Mormon.

Critics point out that it is not physically possible for a Jewish person to be transformed into a Native American person (with regards to skin color, physical features, hair, etc.) during that person's lifetime.[citation needed]

I don't think that any researchers would seriously consider the statements above to be supportable. Bochica (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Cdowis (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Changed ===Rebuttal of LA Times report by William Lobdell===

The argument that the DNA issue can be resolved with reference to the Book of Mormon containing errors has not been used by any LDS supporter. It is a fake argument, and contradicts LDS doctrine by implying that the entire history of the BOM is unreliable, rather than minor errors. This argument was replaced by a reference to the many articles referenced on the LDS web site.


Also added definition of "principal" for clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdowis (talk • contribs) 19:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archaeology merge

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was merge after limited response - please let me know if you disagree. --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I propose we merge Archaeology and the Book of Mormon#Genetic studies into this article. A brief mention in the archaeology article is all that is needed. I think this is a cut and dried candidate for a merge, so in the absence of a lot of interest or voting, I will move forward with the merge in a weeks time.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Merge logistics

As I was performing the merge, I noticed that by and large the content from the other page is already here. As such, I am not inserting this text anywhere. I am including it below in case someone wants to pick it apart an see if there is something that can be salvaged, but I think we are ok. --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, many people have examined existing genetic data in order to determine its relationship to the people described in the Book of Mormon. Several studies have been performed in which DNA from modern indigenous Americans has been examined in an attempt to determine Native American origins. Several authors have published works that suggest that current studies of genetic anthropology using DNA evidence do not provide support for a Semitic origin of New World populations as suggested by traditional views of the Book of Mormon.[1][2] Other researchers warn against using genetics to attempt to prove or disprove the historicity of the Book of Mormon, citing a lack of source genes and the improbability of tracing Israelite DNA even if it was present.[3][4]

[edit] Noachian flood

I've removed the following paragraph from the article due to lack of citations:

Other critics[attribution needed] of the "limited geography" model note that that the Book of Mormon, as well as other Mormon scriptures, point out that all living things in the Americas were destroyed by the Noachian flood. According to Mormon Doctrine the Noachian Flood is not a metaphor, but an historical world-wide flood. This flood, according to the Book of Mormon, killed off any Bering Strait immigrant inhabitants of the Americas long before they could have had a chance to intermarry with any Lamanites. Accordingly, the proponents of Limited Geography are, to the extent they posit intermarriage between Native Americans who arrived via a land bridge from Asia with Lamanites, espousing an heretical position.

It is more likely that this is just another viewpoint on the topic, one that I sincerely doubt the LDS church has endorsed. Citations are essential to determining how prevalent this view is. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This flood, according to the Book of Mormon, killed off any Bering Strait immigrant inhabitants of the Americas long before they could have had a chance to intermarry with any Lamanites. The Book of Mormon says no such thing. I doubt that a secondary source exists that asserts this - it appears to be someone's original research. Bochica (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)