NOM

I'm no geneticist, but this National Geographic article by Brian Handwerk (Nov. 22, 2023) caught my eye. It explains new studies showing: "Nearly one-third of Native American genes come from west Eurasian people linked to the Middle East and Europe, rather than entirely from East Asians as previously thought, according to a newly sequenced genome."
-and- "Prevailing theories suggest that Native Americans are descended from a group of East Asians who crossed the Bering Sea via a land bridge perhaps 16,500 years ago, though some sites may evidence an earlier arrival. (See "Siberian, Native American Languages Linked—A First [2008].")

"This study changes this idea because it shows that a significant minority of Native American ancestry actually derives not from East Asia but from a people related to present-day western Eurasians," Willerslev said."

Naturally LDS apologists are all over this, because if it can be twisted and stretched (by ignoring numerous historical, Meteorological, genetic, and other scientific facts)to fit the BOM story, they are validated. Anyone else seen this?

This article is from 2013 and has gotten a TON of play by apologists, but as you said if you want to take this study as evidence you're screwed anyway because it completely undercuts the Book of Mormon narrative (not to mention Adam and Eve in Missouri).

I remember years ago listening to the 'Three Geneticists Response to the Church's Essay' on Mormon Stories and they talked about that and it really is funny how easily it is to explain this stuff when you know what they're saying... and apologists do whatever they can to make sure you don't know what it's actually saying.

jfro18 wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 16, 2023 6:45 pm

This article is from 2013 and has gotten a TON of play by apologists, but as you said if you want to take this study as evidence you're screwed anyway because it completely undercuts the Book of Mormon narrative (not to mention Adam and Eve in Missouri).

I remember years ago listening to the 'Three Geneticists Response to the Church's Essay' on Mormon Stories and they talked about that and it really is funny how easily it is to explain this stuff when you know what they're saying... and apologists do whatever they can to make sure you don't know what it's actually saying.

Never had given much thought to the Adam and Eve starting out in Missouri. Not sure how I missed that one. Interesting.

Great memory Jfro. I'm listening to the podcast and around the 30 minute mark they discuss that very National Geographic article.
The irony is staggering- BOM apologist: "24,000 year old DNA supports the Book of Mormon?!?" WTH.

deacon blues wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 17, 2023 9:59 am

Great memory Jfro. I'm listening to the podcast and around the 30 minute mark they discuss that very National Geographic article.
The irony is staggering- BOM apologist: "24,000 year old DNA supports the Book of Mormon?!?" WTH.

This is what I find amusing, the desperation to easily brush off all the dates recorded in the BOM and the Bible timeline in order to grab onto some remote evidence to support it. It's how religion always wants it both ways or all ways or always. But ya know, Science doesn't disagree with scripture, but if it does, it's man's ways, not god's ways and the learned are the enemies of religious rational thinking. Or, evidence doesn't matter because it's a religious text, not a historical record.

Good thing the BOM writers didn't waist any precious plates on descriptions of the culture, construction, reporting the years, the governance, the army and casualty numbers, as well as strategies of battles from all the wars. And "It came to pass" had to be included over 1,400 times. All that was more important than actual Jesus words...that were mostly borrowed from the bible. But maybe just enough non-fiction to make it interesting enough to sell off for money, too bad the Canadian's didn't bite. What would the church be like today if JS had managed to sell the BOM copywrite?

It's been a long time since I looked into this, but it seemed to me that this DNA evidence either works against the Book of Mormon, or suggests that most of the people on the planet are Nephites or Lamanites.

In 2021, Radio Free Mormon interviewed geneticist Dr. Simon Southernton. Dr. Southernton is the guy who first did the DNA research that found the BOM had no link to middle eastern DNA. This is a very detailed look at the science of DNA and exactly why the BOM has no DNA evidence. Big shout out to Dr. Southernton for his ability to make the science very understandable for a lay person.

I believe they address the Nat. Geo report from a few years before as part of that episode, but I could be wrong. It's been quite a while since I listened to it.

https://radiofreemormon.org/2021/01/rad ... of-mormon/

Thanks for the links to the podcasts. they were very helpful. And thanks for the careful reading of my posts. My Nov. 2023 article date was wrong- actually Nov. 2013 was right. Sorry about the carelessness.
I was thinking how some, not all nuanced TBM apologists now view the DNA issue. Michael Ash wrote an article saying now people should all jump on the "disappearing DNA" bandwagon. See his September 13, 2015 article in 'Meridian Magazine.'
Ash disparages the old view that LDS of my generation had, that Lamanites were the primary ancestors of Indians. then he castigates non-believers who
thought this was significant, saying:
"It sounds like a good argument but it falls apart when we recognize one tiny little detail—that the Lehites were a small group who migrated into a land full of already existing populations. When the Lehites intermingled with these larger populations, their DNA disappeared."- Michael Ash.

Note that Ash, whether in ignorance or intentionally, ignores the fact that LDS leaders, scholars, and teachers were not the ones (with a handful of exceptions) were not the ones who enlightened the masses- people like me- who believed that rubbish. It was the critical scholars and writers who actually did that.
It wasn't Bruce McConkie, Pres. Hinckley, or even Michael Ash, who enlightened me, it was Thomas Ferguson (the later skeptical T.J) John Dehlin, and Simon Southerton. Incidentally, the current LDS leaders/teachers are saying "trust us and don't listen to non-believers."
That advice has an inconsistent tract record.
Critics are good for something, eh Bro. Ash?