'DNA Evidence' Does not Take into Account that Lehites were Israelites, not Judahites

Comment by Joel Acheson with affirmative reply by Randall Shortridge, Ph.D. Molecular Biologist.  (Dr. Shortridge was one of the scientists interviewed in a DNA & BofM Documentary.)

From: joel acheson
To: sterlingda@greaterthings.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: (mark thomase): Faithful Respond to 'DNA Evidence Does Not Support BofM as Historic Record Claim

Hi Sterling

Methinks we forget one simple fact: In I Ne., Chapter 2, Nephi clearly points out that he and his descendants (as well as his brothers and their descendants) were Josephites (Israelites), not Judahites (Jews).  So why does seemingly everyone run around trying to prove that the early inhabitants were or were not Jews?   That is totally off-point!

Joel

Sterling's Question to Randall

Randall,
 
I've not been intimate to this whole DNA controversy, and have only recently began looking into it.
 
I have a hard time believing they have been so reckless as to miss something as obvious as this.
 
Are you sure it is as simple as this?
 
Can we actually blow away the entire "DNA evidence" line based on this?
 
What am I missing.
 
Sterling

Randall's Reply

Well, no, because there are several issues that can be considered separately, but should not be left out of the overall picture.     Actually, the BYU scientists came up with this idea early on, but abandoned it I think, because of the problem of timing.   It is clear that Indians arrived much earlier than the recent period in world history as specified in the BoM (which, as you know, is 600 BC).    You might also know that DNA fingerprinting of ancient skeletons, some thousands of years old, can be done with today's technology and has been done.    American Indians predate Lehi by a long shot, so cannot be Lehites per the BoM account.

This brings up another topic that is ancillary to the BoM, but perhaps at the crux of a lot of it.   Timing is an issue that reaches much further than the BoM topic.    As you probably know, many different disciplines of science have shown fairly clearly that man has been on earth for millions of years rather than merely a few thousand as taught in the traditional Christian school.     One must come to face that issue too.   Well, presuming that the religious view is correct, then is science that unreliable, that misleading?    Well, one must look.   When one does, it is hard to deny that there are major problems with this issue of timing in regard to how creation is taught by mainstream religion.    Is the earth only a few thousand years old and man only here for a mere 6000 years?  Science clearly says not.   And it is hard to discredit science without discrediting the very thing that we use to describe our existence.  Sense and reason.   And we should not be unreasonable without abandoning our humanity.   So, we are obviously caught in a crunch here.

Again, can the creation account (in regard to timing) be reconciled with scientific discoveries (eg. evolution; age of earth, etc)?   Well, it seems on the surface that they can't.    Well, I have asked about this for years.   At the present time, the only thing that can make sense is the history of the earth as taught by the secret brotherhoods like the Masons which is able reconcile them both (ie. evolution and creation).   But, the conversation from there is a real can of worms not for the faint hearted.    And the reasons why it is this way will keep one up many nights without sleeping.

Randall

Joel Skousen Comment

See also