How do you do DNA testing without DNA?

Question

People say that DNA testing has proven the Book of Mormon to be false, because it shows that the Native American Indians are not descended from the Jews. But, wouldn't you need the DNA of the people who you are comparing DNA with? For example, to know if today's Native American Indians are descended from the Lamanites, you would need the DNA of the Lamanites from the end of the Book of Mormon. And even then, nothing will be conclusive, since many centuries have passed and DNA gets "diluted" or "evolved" or whatever.

Smart as he is, I do not rely on Jeff Lindsay on this, I refer to other LDS scientists who are more expert in the field of DNA.

Actually, I don't beleive there was any actual testing done. It was based on the results of other testing done for other reasons. If it had been testing of actual Lamanite remains, it might have made more of an impression.

Answer 1

You are absolutely correct, you would need the DNA in order to determine decendancy and hierarchy.

However, there are some extraordinary methods for getting hold of DNA from bones, fossils etc, so the DNA is very much available.

In order to prove decendancy, there are accepted models of mutation rates, wich are mathematical averages alond with standard deviations which determine at what rate DNA will change over time. With these models which have been derived by examining literally millions of DNA mutations within tens or thousands of species, we now know very accurately at what rate DNA changes and can work out not only whether species are related, but also how long evolution took to create one species from another.

Answer 2

DNA does exist for these people. It is found in skeletal remains, latrine deposit fossils/remains, blood remnants on rocks and war weapons, and hair folicles trapped in old clothing.

Such DNA samples have been taken from several places in the Americas, and have shown no relation between the native americans and the Hebrews.

The Book of Mormon DOES claim that the Lamanites are the "principal ancestors" of the American Indians. Therefore, this DNA should "principally" show Hebrew DNA to a larger extent than Mongolian and other Eastern Asian DNA. What we've found, however, is that it ONLY shows Asian DNA, with the exception of post-1492 Europeans.

By the way, I'm not sure if you're familiar with how DNA works, or if Jeff Lindsay has been the one to expound on it for you, but DNA doesn't "get diluted or evolved or whatever". Dilution only takes place in the event that it's mixed in with other types of DNA, for example, Europeans. Given that there are only two hypotheses that you're testing for, however (the Hebrew and the not-Hebrew hypotheses), the only way dilution would effect the meaning of the results would be for post-1492 Hebrews to have mixed into the Native American gene pool, which would skew the results IN FAVOR of the BoM instead of against it. Given the lack of jews migrating to the US between 1492 and the 1880s, however (not to mention the apprehension of Jews to marrying any non-Jew, which is how they perceived the Indians), it is quite safe to say that this wouldn't happen.

Gene "evolution" takes thousands of years. Gene "mutation", however, can occur on a micro basis, in individual samples. The best way to negate this effect, therefore, is to come up with a large sample size, which has been done. As expected, the mutations are few and far between, giving us an overwhelming pile of data showing that the ancestry of Native American Indians is almost entirely of Asian origin.

Edit: Good call. FARMS, while not much more highly regarded than Jeff in the scientific field, is far more authoritative on DNA and biology. Most of them even have degrees, some of them Doctorate degrees.

Answer 3

Well, it is reasonable to say that the Lamanites from the Book of Mormon (asbout which I have limited knowledge) would have genes similar to that of other Jews, with whom they lived, and will have interbred.

So, if the genes of modern-day Jews have little in common with those of modern-day Native Americans, then it is also reasonable to assume that they are not in fact that closely related.
It is a bit like constructing an evolutionary tree, and is a methodology called Phylogeny

And sure, DNA *does* change in a population (this is called "genetic drift"), but it does so at the same rate in all populations. So if you look at the DNA of Native Americans, Europeans, Jews, and Egyptians, and you find that (for example) the DNA of the Jews and Egyptians are quite closely related, the DNA of Europeans are equally-related to each of them (but not as similar as they are to each other), and the DNA of Native Americans are only slightly similar to each of the other three populations, then you can conclude that:
The Native Americans split off a long time ago,
The Europeans split off more recently than that,
And the Jews and the Egyptians split off most recently.

I'm not saying that is what happened, but that is how the studies are done, and how the results are interpreted.

Answer 4

Well, you cant test DNA without DNA.. thats just an oxymoron.. whoa I almost wrote oxymormon lol, anyways I digress....
It is possible, and is done regularly, to extract DNA from fossils. In bones DNA remains intact and "un altered" for a VERY long time. In fact, scientists have extracted neadrathal DNA from ancient himinids... so to answer your question, all that would need to have happened is a few Lamanite remains had to be found, and some dna extracted from in tact bone. this is relatively simple today and is not terribly involved as far as genetic research goes... however it is extremely expensive.
So, Im sure geneticists extracted intact DNA from bone remains of some Lamanites, and compared it side by side( juxtaposed) to a sample of modern day indians.

Answer 5

People make a lot of false assumptions on this issue.

The book of Mormon does not claim that:

- ONLY people mentioned in the Book of Mormon came to the Americas (and it mentions 4 separate groups that came)
- The majority of the native American "blood" came from Lehi
- We don't know much about Lehi's genetics and even less of Ishmael and his family's and what markers would have definitely been there.

In a nutshell, the lack of a "smoking gun" type of connection does in no way disprove the Book of Mormon. It is something that may or may not show up.

However, I doubt that when it does show up (assuming it does) that people will suddenly jump to their feet to call the Mormon Missionaries to get baptized....they'll explain it away and come up with some other reason why the Mormon church can't be Christ's church.

Answer 6

The lamanites DNA will never be linked to hebrews because they never existed, well outside of never neverland, solomon spaulding made them up. Sorry, but this is fact. I wonder if, in many years to come, people will worship scooby doo, will search for evidence of this God like dog, who came from america to save the world.

Answer 7

You're right. I recently watched a show on History...or Discovery..or something, and they took DNA of like 8000 men in Mongolia...and said that 1 in 4 people in Mongolia are descendants of Ghangis Khan...I'm like did Khan leave behind a vial of blood?

But anyway...think about it...if 1 in 4 people are descendants of Ghangis Khan in 1 country...and he lived 800 years ago...think about how we could all be from Noah who lived a few thousand years ago...

Answer 8

I have found DNA evidence that proves those Anti-Mormon wankers that made this statement are idiots.

Answer 9

it is practically not possible