Recently we posted a five-part series about DNA and
immediately received several comments and criticisms; however, most of the remarks received were
based on old science and not on what has been learned since 2002 onward. Our
responses below include the point of view from this new knowledge of MtDNA that
has been obtained from more recent studies and much larger sampling techniques.
Comment #1: “Rod Meldrum claims that the primary races of the earth, Asian
(Oriental), African (Negroid) and European (Caucasian) are easily distinguished
from each other through specific DNA markers or signatures that delineate their
ancestry, so it would appear that DNA is a more reliable way of determining
location and ancestry than you claim” Tanman Mark.
Response: Rod Meldrum
often makes firm, unquestionable claims about things that are not so accurate
as a reader might expect. As an example, one of Meldrum's cited references (his
#10, pp. 22–23) is taken from David B. Goldstein and Lounès Chikhi, "Human
Migrations and Population Structure: What We Know and Why It Matters," Annual
Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, Vol 3, 2002, pp 137-138, which in fact, rejects efforts to tie
genetics to common conceptions of race, in which they state regarding DNA
findings: “One definite and obvious consequence is that races in any meaningful
sense of the term do not exist in the human species. The term race as popularly
imagined implies groups that can be cleanly separated from one another, and
within our species, there simply are no such groups. Rather, differences among
groups of humans are always graded, and decisions about whom to cluster with
whom on genetic grounds always must include arbitrary criteria.”
And though he cites
no evidence or reference, Meldrum even claims that “through DNA sequencing,
these three primary genetic groups, called supergroups, can be differentiated
one from another due to the presence or lack of certain DNA markers, which
makes them identifiable for genetic study and makes it possible to identify
peoples’ genetic lineages”; however, according to J. F. Wilson (and 7 others)
in, "Population genetic structure of variable drug response," Nature
Genetics, Vol 29, Nov 2001, pp 265-269, “One can certainly determine a genetic
lineage, but it is difficult to shoehorn everything into a clean threefold
division of humanity. One study found that drug metabolism varied among four
genetic clusters of humans, but even these clusters had a generally poor
correspondence with ethnic labels.”
Typically, Meldrum,
either because he does not fully understand what he reads and cites, or ignores
the actual information, misquotes and misuses these two examples regarding his
claim of three basic “supergroups” which, obviously, he has taken from Noah's
children and claims that “from these three brothers and their wives sprang the
world's three primary lineages or 'supergroups' which in genetic terms are
African, European, and Asian.” Modern Science, and pure logic, should suggest
that with intermarrying, etc., and with divergent previous DNA mingling, that
there is no “pure” African, European, and Asian. As Goldstein and Chikhi add
regarding racial or ethnic groups: “No matter how such groups are defined, it
is well known that the majority of the genetic variation in the human species
is due to differences between individuals within, rather than between, groups.”
Lastly, another
source Meldrum quotes (#27, pp79-80), that totally disagrees with him is Andrés
Reséndez and Brian M. Kemp, “Genetics and the History of Latin America,” Hispanic
American Historical Review, Vol
85/2, May 2005, pp 296–97, where they wrote: "While DNA scholars try
mightily to find variation among populations, the most obvious insight
generally remains unstated: namely, that we humans are practically identical
when it comes to our genetic makeup. Physical traits that we recognize at a
quick glance, such as skin color, eye shape, and body size, may precondition us
to believe that there exist significant genetic differences. In fact, these
physical traits are rooted in insignificant variations at the level of our DNA.
There are no pure races or ethnic/national groupings. The entire eugenics
edifice rested on the perception that humans came in a few unadulterated
varieties—most commonly Africans, Asians, and Caucasians—as well as a range of
mixed or mongrel populations between them. It went without saying that these
pure races were tangible, stable, and easily ascertained. Modern DNA research
has shown the wrongheadedness of such discrete groupings.”
Comment #2: “The specific theory about your BoM and DNA
can't be true because there is no evidence even remotely suggesting that there
was ever any Hebrew blood among any native American. There is no archeology to
support your theory. There is no linguistic support to your theory. There is no
historical support to your theory. So, the DNA just confirms what everyone
already knew” Stanley W.
Response: Well, that
was a mouthful. Let’s see about each point: Point One: “No evidence even
remotely suggesting that there was ever any Hebrew blood among any native
American.” I would agree with that. First: The Jaredites were not Hebrew,
therefore no Hebrew DNA, plus they were annihilated around 600 B.C. with no
survivorsand no intermarryings with another group; 2) The Mulekite with Jewish DNA were absorbed into the Nephite
lineage and their DNA mixed with that of the Nephites, and the Nephites with
this mixed DNA were annihilated and ceased to exist in 421 A.D.; 3) The
Lamanite DNA was changed in about 550 B.C. or so. Therefore, there could be no
Hebrew DNA in the Americas from the Book of Mormon peoples. Point Two: “ There is no archeology to support your
theory.” The Archaeology of Andean South America has plenty of
archaeological evidence of the descriptions of the Nephite lands in the Book of
Mormon, just as metallurgy, textiles, stone walls, fortresses, resorts,
elephant and horse remains, roads and highways, temples, palaces, two unknown
animals, two unknown grains, etc.; however, if you mean nothing has been found
that says, “Lehi slept here,” or “this was Nephi’s house,” etc., then, yes,
there is no evidence of such a thing anymore than there is that type of
evidence of the Bible archaeologically speaking. This is such a spurious
argument, it is senseless; Point Three: “There
is no linguistic support to your theory.” Another spurious point. There is
no linguistic support for any ancient people whose language ended and the
people were annihilated. The Lamanites had to be taught the Nephite language,
and about five hundred years later there is no indication they still spoke that
language—more importantly, with no written records, etc., after 1000 years,
there is no reason to expect them to still speak Hebrew or any variation of it;
Point Four: “There is no historical
support to your theory.” What might be meant by historical support is a
curious term.
A Phoenician ship of about 600 B.C. While it
is believed they might have traveled up the coast to Britain for the tin trade,
there is no way such ships could have broached the Atlantic Ocean and withstood
the pounding of waves and currents in the deep ocean. Such speculation is
spurious and without value
In 600 B.C., the
Phoenicians had been building ships, controlling trading, and sailing
throughout the Mediterranean Sea, however, today, almost nothing is known of
them in an area where people have lived and kept records for thousands of
years. The history we know of the Biblical period is through the Biblical
record, so the history we would have of the Book of Mormon period would be
through the Book of Mormon. Point Five: “The
DNA just confirms what everyone already knew.” Actually, DNA is in such a
new state, that it is changing every year, so it is hard to claim DNA has
proven any such thing—but the point of DNA is, there should be no DNA of the
Hebrews or Jews in the Western Hemisphere as indicated above and in several other
posts.
Comment #3: “Your Church says the
events described in the Book of Mormon were confined to a small section of
Central America, and that the Hebrew tribe was small enough that its DNA was
swallowed up by the existing Native Americans, however, the DNA can't be
"swallowed up" because mitochondrial DNA is passed on from the mother
UNDILUTED”
Janis J.
Response: Instead of passing on what you’ve heard from other
critics, why not read the reports that have been available now since 2002 that
MtDNA is not just passed on from the Mother and is not undiluted—old paradigms
die hard, but why not keep up? In addition, the LDS Church has made no stand on where the Book of Mormon lands were located--some authorities over time have specified the Western Hemisphere, but that is all. You need to keep in mind any and all statements made about the geography and placement of the Book of Mormon Land of Promise is done so by individuals, including myself, who do not in any way represent the Church or speak for the Church, or make any claims or insinuations for the Church on this matter. Nor has the Church made any statement about DNA of which I am aware.
No comments:
Post a Comment