Skip to main content

A Case of Disappearing DNA

Not too long ago, I wrote a summary of the DNA/Book of Mormon issue which I hope was understandable to even those who know very little about DNA. My own experience with reading the DNA articles is that they are difficult to understand, so I tried to break down in common, understandable terms, with as little jargon as possible. One of the things I pointed out there is that people have ancestors whose DNA is undetectable. The notorious Greg Smith has recently brought a case in point to my attention.

Ancestry.com genetics expert Anne Gillespie Mitchell fielded a question from a lady whose great-great-grandmother was 1/4th Cherokee. Yet when her DNA was professionally analyzed, “the results did not show any evidence of [her] Cherokee connection.” Anne explains that since it would be her 4th great-grandparent who was a full blooded Cherokee (that is only 6 generations back, not counting the questioner; which, for my genealogy anyway, takes me back to about the mid-18th century—not a super long time ago), the questioner probably only has around 1.5625% Cherokee DNA, “And that may not be enough to detect Native American ethnicity.”

Now let’s think about this for just a minute. If an ancestor from probably around the early-to-mid-18th century (maybe back into the late-17th century, depending on how much older this lady is than me) can be undetectable by DNA, what about an ancestor from 600 BC? Just something to think about, I suppose.
Labels:

Comments

  1. So true. And we don't know everything there is to know about DNA so it is not a reliable witness of the authenticity or the falseness of the Book of Mormon.

    ReplyDelete

  2. So, I have a question. In my college philosophy class, we learned about Occam's razor. Basically (correct me if I am wrong), it says that out of all the explanations, the one with the least assumptions is probably the correct one. I sometimes find myself applying this razor to anti-mormon theories about the origins of the Book of Mormon. It seems like it takes fewer assumptions to simply take Joseph Smith's account at face value than to have to add the assumptions that he had access to a library, or that Oliver Cowdrey or Sidney Rigdon helped him fabricate the book and story of the gold plates, or that he was a genius con-man that was planning on swindling people from 15 years old. But then again, some would argue that it requires assumptions to believe in God or angels. Do you think that Occam's razor is applicable to this situation? And if so, what theories should it be applied to?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The 15 “Best Books” to Read BEFORE Having a Faith Crisis

Elder M. Russell Ballard recently stressed that it is important for Gospel educators to be well-informed on controversial topics, not only by studying the scriptures and Church materials, but also by reading “the best LDS scholarship available.” I personally think it is imperative in today’s world for every Latter-day Saint—not just Gospel educators—to make an effort to be informed on both controversial issues as well as knowing reliable faith-building information as well.
(Given that Elder Ballard’s CES address was published to general Church membership in the Ensign, I think it’s safe to say that Church leadership also feels this way.)
An important step in the process of getting informed is reading the 11 Gospel Topic essays and getting familiar with their contents. But what’s next? How can a person learn more about these and other topics? What are the “best books” (D&C 88:118) or “the best LDS scholarship available”?
Here are 15 suggestions.
1. Michael R. Ash, Shaken Faith S…
16 comments
Read more

“The Dominant Narrative is Not True”: Some Thoughts on Recent Remarks by Richard Bushman

The following is making its rounds on Facebook (from this video): Questioner: In your view do you see room in Mormonism for several narratives of a religious experience or do you think that in order for the Church to remain strong they would have to hold to that dominant narrative?
Richard Bushman: I think that for the Church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative. The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained. The Church has to absorb all this new information or it will be on very shaky grounds and that's what it is trying to do and it will be a strain for a lot of people, older people especially. But I think it has to change. As I have seen this quote flash across my Facebook news feed and thought about how to make sense of it, I have been reminded of the short essay response questions I would often have on tests or assignments in college or even high school. It would not be uncommon for these questions to be built around a quote from an important schola…
24 comments
Read more

Responding to the New Video on Nahom as Archaeological Evidence for the Book of Mormon

Many of my (few) readers have probably already seen the new video by Book of Mormon Central on Nahom as archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, starring my good friend (and co-author on a related paper) Stephen Smoot. If you haven’t, check it out:


As usual, comments sections wherever this video is shared have been flooded by Internet ex-Mormons insisting this not evidence for the Book of Mormon. I’ve actually had a few productive conversations with some reasonable people who don’t think Nahom is, by itself, compelling evidence—and I can understand that. But the insistence that Nahom is not evidence at all is just, frankly, absurd. So I’ll just go ahead and preempt about 90% of future responses to this post by responding to the most common arguments against Nahom/NHM now:
1. The Book of Mormon is false, therefore there can be no evidence, therefore this is not evidence. First, this is circular reasoning. It assumes the conclusion (Book of Mormon is false) which the evidence pre…
57 comments
Read more