What about DNA evidence and the Book of Mormon? Doesn’t DNA prove the Book of Mormon can’t be true?

Anonymous,



2 Responses to “What about DNA evidence and the Book of Mormon? Doesn’t DNA…”


Webmaster de AllAboutMormons.com
2009-10-05 00:33:45
Thanks for your question. Coincidentally, I am a biologist and have studied this issue. I've already written about DNA and the Book of Mormon on my site, but let me provide more information.

What Have Mormons Believed about Amerindians in the Past?

There are two theories of the Lehite colonization. In the past, most Mormons believed that the Lehites came to the Americas and found these continents unpopulated. According to this theory, the Lehites quickly populated the entire Western Hemisphere and so are the principal ancestors of modern-day American Indians. Those who embrace this theory believe that the civilization described in the Book of Mormon extended from North America all the way down to South America.

For many years, a minority of Mormons embraced a different theory. These Mormons have believed that when the Lehites came to the Americas they encountered many other peoples. The civilization described in the Book of Mormon covered only a limited geography, not all of North and South America, and the Lehites eventually intermarried with the native peoples. The Lehites are among the ancestors of modern-day American Indians, but they are not necessarily the principal ancestors.

What the DNA Evidence Says

Most DNA studies are unable to find markers that link modern-day American Indians to ancient Semitic peoples, suggesting that the Lehites were not the principal ancestors of modern Native Americans. We can thus say with some certainty that the DNA evidence has disproven the hemispheric model of Book of Mormon geography. When the Lehites came to the Americas, they did not find an empty continent, but a continent full of peoples that had come to the Americas across the Bering Strait.

But what about the second theory embracing a limited geography, a theory endorsed by many prominent Mormons like Elder Levi Edgar Young in 1928, President Anthony W. Ivins in 1929, Elder Dallin H. Oaks in the 1950s, and Elder Richard L. Evans in 1957? Does the DNA evidence disprove this second theory? The answer is no!

One scientist has stated that there were probably several million Amerindians in 600 BC, when Lehi and his family originally arrived. Let's say there were 5 million Native Americans at that time. If we assume that Lehi's colony had about 15 members, then 15 / 5 x 106 * 100 = 0.0003% of Native-American DNA is Semitic. On average, then, we would have to test hundreds of thousands of Native Americans before we would find someone with Semitic DNA. Given that Native Americans have intermingled with Europeans and others, however, even if we did find a Native American with Semitic DNA, it would be difficult to rule out the possibility that he inherited that DNA from Europeans after Columbus discovery. In other words, DNA evidence can neither prove nor disprove the limited-geography model.

So When Church Leaders Said that All Native Americans are "Lamanites," Were They Wrong?

Surprisingly, even if only 0.0003% of Native-American DNA is Semitic, it is still likely that every Native American alive is a descendent of Lehi. Let's assume that a generation is 25 years. A Native American living today in 2009 had two ancestors (two parents) who were alive 25 years ago in 1984, four ancestors (four grandparents) who were alive 50 years ago in 1959, etc. We can use an exponential equation to calculate the number of ancestors our Native American friend had in 600 BC, at the time Lehi came to the Americas. In 600 BC, our friend had 2.6 x 1031 (26,000 billion billion billion ancestors)! But scientists estimate that there were only several million American Indians in 600 BC. How is this possible?

Obviously, the branches of our Native-American friend's family tree must cross many, many times. Barring some incredible violation of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, every person alive in the Americas in 600 BC is an ancestor of our modern Native-American friend. If Lehi did come to the Americas in 600 BC, every Native American alive today is a Lamanite.

Conclusion

I hope this discussion helps to clear up some of your questions about DNA and the Book of Mormon. Science has in fact done us Mormons a great favor by teaching us more about the Book of Mormon. While the Lehites didn't contribute much DNA, they are among the ancestors of every Native American alive. Interestingly, the Church has decided to change the introduction to the Book of Mormon to reflect this new information. Future editions of the Book of Mormon introduction will state that the Lehites are among the ancestors of all Native Americans, not that they are the principal ancestors.
Richard
2009-10-05 19:19:11
I had a question like this come up in Sunday school at church once, and it only started a fight about what DNA can and can't prove. (So the Father of conention, lucifer, was invited and partook of a Sunday school lesson, fancy that)

Can DNA evidence prove something absolutly? In my limited schooling DNA has been taught that it can't prove a lot of things. For instance why can't DNA prove without a doubt that a criminal did in fact commit a crime? DNA fingerprinting only can be used to prove that a person did not commit the crime, but it cannot be the only factor of evidence to condemn a person. So that said allow me to ask you a question back.

Have you yourself read and prayed about the Book of Mormon? I have and I received a witness too sacred to attempt to describe over the internet (or face to face for that matter) that the Book of Mormon is true and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's only true and living church again restored upon the earth.

So when people come up to me attempting to prove through DNA evidence that the book is not true I simply tell them that God has witnessed to me of it's truthfullness, and who am I to contend against God? He cannot lie so turns out the book is true and put quite simply that is enough.

Webmaster: Thanks for your comments, Richard. I agree completely. Just for the record, DNA fingerprinting is far more reliable than using DNA to trace distant ancestory. I think a lot of people confuse the two, and so give DNA evidence of distant ancestry a lot more credit than they probably should.

Leave a Comment


Comments have been closed because this question is so old.
Instead, you might want to: