How do you do DNA testing without DNA?
Question by mormon_4_jesus: How do you do DNA testing without DNA?
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.
Best answer:
Answer by Peter V
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.
Add your own answer in the comments!
4 Responses to How do you do DNA testing without DNA?
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.
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.
it is practically not possible
I have found DNA evidence that proves those Anti-Mormon wankers that made this statement are idiots.