Does the DNA really prove anything?
The next line of argument involve DNA sample from "human residue" – which is a residue that was left "imprinted" as it were on the ossuary walls. The samples that were sent for testing were from "Jesus, son of Joseph" and from "Mariamne".
Now, I am not, by far a nuclear biologist, or any sort of expert in DNA. However, I think there is enough logical information given in this work to be able to refute the conclusions that Simcha Jacobovici has come to in his work. Their DNA expert is Dr. Carney Matheson and he even has some things to say about their conclusions. Let's examine.
First, the method. The human residue was initially tested and resulted in the conclusion that "…these people were of Middle Easter stock." (pg. 169). No big news there. Apparently, the DNA samples weren't in the best condition so the type of testing they could do was very limited. Thus, Matheson says, "…we shifted our focus to the mitochondrial DNA – which is, of course, the DNA inherited maternally, from mother to child. This means that we can identify maternal relationships. Meaning we can only address questions such as: 'Are these two individuals – one male and the other female – mother and child? Are they brother and sister? Or are they two unrelated individuals?'" (pg. 170).
In the DNA expert's own words, we can only address questions about maternal relationship such as:
1) Are these mother and child?
2) Are these brother and sister?
3) Are they not maternally related?
Now, Matheson is the expert here, so quite frankly, his work needs to speak for itself. The results? After a series of test explanations and graph comparison of DNA proteins, he says, "…we can then conclude that these two individuals are not related – or at least, not maternally related." (pg. 172)
Now, logically speaking, simply because two individual are not from the same mother, does that logically mean that they are, therefore, married to each other? Hardly! Not being maternally related is not a sufficient condition to prove marital relations. The very proposition is obviously false! There are many people who do not share the same mother yet they are not married. So what do we really have here? Logically, there is no warrant to make the connection that they are married.
This is not to say that the possibility is not there. It is entirely possible that these individuals are indeed husband and wife. However, this DNA test does not and cannot prove that relation at all. It only leaves open that possibility.
Another possibility, precluding maternal relations, is that, since there is no maternal relations and these individuals are not related is that these individuals are married to other people in the tomb. This is an equally viable possibility. But DNA testing the maternal relation between only these two samples will not tell us this. It is only a possibility.
Another possibility that needs to be considered is that though these two individuals don't share maternal relations, they might in fact share a paternal relation. It could very well be the case that "Jesus, son of Joseph" is the father of "Mariamne". This could be true, but again, no way of testing it. Thus, it remains only a possibility.
So what do we really have here with the DNA? Again, we really do have a whole lot of nothing. All the "evidence" tells us is that these two DNA samples are not maternally related! That's it! Anything further than that is pure speculation. In fact, to conclude that simply because these people do not share the same mother, and thus they must be married is to have already had an answer before the evidence was presented and simply twisting and spinning the facts to fit the preconceived conclusion! We've all done it. We make a claim and whatever circumstance support our side are the ones that we selectively use for our support!
The true method would be to see the facts and then go only where it leads and no further. Contrary to what many believe is "scholarship", it is ok to say "I don't know"! It is ok to admit ignorance and stop there. One does not have to answer everything.
As I read the chapter on the DNA evidence, which is roughly a short 8 pages, when Simcha Jacobovici is receiving the results, I got the idea that he was just so thrilled that these weren't related because it meant, essentially, that there was no counter DNA evidence to debunk his theory. As long as he heard "no relation" he was able to conclude "then married."
The one who seems to be caught in the middle of this is Dr. Carney Matheson. He is quoted as saying that "these two individuals, if they were unrelated, would most likely have been husband and wife." (pg. 172). To be fair to the good Doctor, lets remember the context in which he spoke this.
In book, Dr. Matheson is given only two samples of "human residue" with which to be able to extract some sort of DNA. He is not given any names, but only told that these came from a family tomb. According to the authors, "Of course, this was not the whole story, but it was the absolute truth."(pg. 168). Was it? If Matheson assumes only two samples coming from one tomb, presumably a family tomb (see pg. 172), then isn't it entirely possible that Matheson assumed that these were the only two individuals that were found in the tomb? Isn't it entirely possible to assume from a familial tomb that two unrelated individuals in a single family tomb are married? Of course it is. But we have to note that he was not given the rest of the facts that could have led him to say something else, and just as reasonable. He as not told that there were other ossuaries in from which these samples came. This is certainly crucial information to leave out if you want to test maternal, even paternal if possible, relations from a family tomb.
When Matheson is told the "rest of the story", Matheson is on the record as believing their conclusions "impossible" (pg. 173) Notice, what we read next and this really proves my earlier point about not having contradictory evidence for the theory. We read,
"Impossible. But the details from the tomb so far had failed consistently to negate the conclusion and were in fact adding up, one positive indicator after another, in support of it." (pg. 173).
What is Jacobovici saying here? Essentially he's saying that since there is nothing to disprove the theory, therefore it must be correct so far!!! Notice, there is nothing to PROVE the theory either! What we have is an argument from silence. There is no positive evidence for the relationship and there is no negating evidence either. Thus, whatever runs between those two boundaries, for all practical purposes, is neither supported nor defeatable.
Interestingly enough, Dr. Matheson has responded to questions about this work. In response to questions from Dr. James White about the maternal relations with the samples, Dr. Matheson responded with this statement:
"This work was done as a service. We did not know who they suspected these individuals to be from. On the report it concludes that these two profiles from two different individuals were not maternally related. That is all the report states. When they did the filming and on the documentary they asked every question under the sun with permutations and manipulations. I provided the investigators with all the possibilities. They were not brother and sister, mother and child, maternal cousins, maternal grandparent and child etc. I also mentioned all of the possibilities, which I should not have done in hindsight. These included, father and daughter, paternal cousins, half brother and sister (sharing the same father) or simply unrelated individuals.The media does what they want." (Link to Dr. White's Blog)
Matheson regrets mentioning to Jacobovici all the possibilities. It should have been enough to just say, "no maternal relation." But the telling part is that he explicitly denies their conclusion and regretfully says, "the media does what they want." Matheson is also quoted as saying, "The only conclusions we made was that these two sets were not maternally related. To me it sounds like absolutely nothing." (see Joe Zias article) .
That is exactly what we have. Nothing. We have no logical basis to conclude what Simcha Jacobovici has. We have no evidence point toward it in the slightest way. The evidence, at best, is neutral from the DNA. And thus, we have a very menacing shadow cast by a bright light behind a small figure made to look like a giant.
Good Christian, you have nothing to fear. Christ is risen! He is not here but is at the right hand of the Father ever interceding for us as our great High Priest. The ones who should fear are those unconverted souls who should always entertain the possibility the Bible is true and that the risen Christ will come back in judgment. Then the world will see all the evidence it needs to bow down to the risen Christ who returns in glory. Come Lord Jesus!
Now, I am not, by far a nuclear biologist, or any sort of expert in DNA. However, I think there is enough logical information given in this work to be able to refute the conclusions that Simcha Jacobovici has come to in his work. Their DNA expert is Dr. Carney Matheson and he even has some things to say about their conclusions. Let's examine.
First, the method. The human residue was initially tested and resulted in the conclusion that "…these people were of Middle Easter stock." (pg. 169). No big news there. Apparently, the DNA samples weren't in the best condition so the type of testing they could do was very limited. Thus, Matheson says, "…we shifted our focus to the mitochondrial DNA – which is, of course, the DNA inherited maternally, from mother to child. This means that we can identify maternal relationships. Meaning we can only address questions such as: 'Are these two individuals – one male and the other female – mother and child? Are they brother and sister? Or are they two unrelated individuals?'" (pg. 170).
In the DNA expert's own words, we can only address questions about maternal relationship such as:
1) Are these mother and child?
2) Are these brother and sister?
3) Are they not maternally related?
Now, Matheson is the expert here, so quite frankly, his work needs to speak for itself. The results? After a series of test explanations and graph comparison of DNA proteins, he says, "…we can then conclude that these two individuals are not related – or at least, not maternally related." (pg. 172)
Now, logically speaking, simply because two individual are not from the same mother, does that logically mean that they are, therefore, married to each other? Hardly! Not being maternally related is not a sufficient condition to prove marital relations. The very proposition is obviously false! There are many people who do not share the same mother yet they are not married. So what do we really have here? Logically, there is no warrant to make the connection that they are married.
This is not to say that the possibility is not there. It is entirely possible that these individuals are indeed husband and wife. However, this DNA test does not and cannot prove that relation at all. It only leaves open that possibility.
Another possibility, precluding maternal relations, is that, since there is no maternal relations and these individuals are not related is that these individuals are married to other people in the tomb. This is an equally viable possibility. But DNA testing the maternal relation between only these two samples will not tell us this. It is only a possibility.
Another possibility that needs to be considered is that though these two individuals don't share maternal relations, they might in fact share a paternal relation. It could very well be the case that "Jesus, son of Joseph" is the father of "Mariamne". This could be true, but again, no way of testing it. Thus, it remains only a possibility.
So what do we really have here with the DNA? Again, we really do have a whole lot of nothing. All the "evidence" tells us is that these two DNA samples are not maternally related! That's it! Anything further than that is pure speculation. In fact, to conclude that simply because these people do not share the same mother, and thus they must be married is to have already had an answer before the evidence was presented and simply twisting and spinning the facts to fit the preconceived conclusion! We've all done it. We make a claim and whatever circumstance support our side are the ones that we selectively use for our support!
The true method would be to see the facts and then go only where it leads and no further. Contrary to what many believe is "scholarship", it is ok to say "I don't know"! It is ok to admit ignorance and stop there. One does not have to answer everything.
As I read the chapter on the DNA evidence, which is roughly a short 8 pages, when Simcha Jacobovici is receiving the results, I got the idea that he was just so thrilled that these weren't related because it meant, essentially, that there was no counter DNA evidence to debunk his theory. As long as he heard "no relation" he was able to conclude "then married."
The one who seems to be caught in the middle of this is Dr. Carney Matheson. He is quoted as saying that "these two individuals, if they were unrelated, would most likely have been husband and wife." (pg. 172). To be fair to the good Doctor, lets remember the context in which he spoke this.
In book, Dr. Matheson is given only two samples of "human residue" with which to be able to extract some sort of DNA. He is not given any names, but only told that these came from a family tomb. According to the authors, "Of course, this was not the whole story, but it was the absolute truth."(pg. 168). Was it? If Matheson assumes only two samples coming from one tomb, presumably a family tomb (see pg. 172), then isn't it entirely possible that Matheson assumed that these were the only two individuals that were found in the tomb? Isn't it entirely possible to assume from a familial tomb that two unrelated individuals in a single family tomb are married? Of course it is. But we have to note that he was not given the rest of the facts that could have led him to say something else, and just as reasonable. He as not told that there were other ossuaries in from which these samples came. This is certainly crucial information to leave out if you want to test maternal, even paternal if possible, relations from a family tomb.
When Matheson is told the "rest of the story", Matheson is on the record as believing their conclusions "impossible" (pg. 173) Notice, what we read next and this really proves my earlier point about not having contradictory evidence for the theory. We read,
"Impossible. But the details from the tomb so far had failed consistently to negate the conclusion and were in fact adding up, one positive indicator after another, in support of it." (pg. 173).
What is Jacobovici saying here? Essentially he's saying that since there is nothing to disprove the theory, therefore it must be correct so far!!! Notice, there is nothing to PROVE the theory either! What we have is an argument from silence. There is no positive evidence for the relationship and there is no negating evidence either. Thus, whatever runs between those two boundaries, for all practical purposes, is neither supported nor defeatable.
Interestingly enough, Dr. Matheson has responded to questions about this work. In response to questions from Dr. James White about the maternal relations with the samples, Dr. Matheson responded with this statement:
"This work was done as a service. We did not know who they suspected these individuals to be from. On the report it concludes that these two profiles from two different individuals were not maternally related. That is all the report states. When they did the filming and on the documentary they asked every question under the sun with permutations and manipulations. I provided the investigators with all the possibilities. They were not brother and sister, mother and child, maternal cousins, maternal grandparent and child etc. I also mentioned all of the possibilities, which I should not have done in hindsight. These included, father and daughter, paternal cousins, half brother and sister (sharing the same father) or simply unrelated individuals.The media does what they want." (Link to Dr. White's Blog)
Matheson regrets mentioning to Jacobovici all the possibilities. It should have been enough to just say, "no maternal relation." But the telling part is that he explicitly denies their conclusion and regretfully says, "the media does what they want." Matheson is also quoted as saying, "The only conclusions we made was that these two sets were not maternally related. To me it sounds like absolutely nothing." (see Joe Zias article) .
That is exactly what we have. Nothing. We have no logical basis to conclude what Simcha Jacobovici has. We have no evidence point toward it in the slightest way. The evidence, at best, is neutral from the DNA. And thus, we have a very menacing shadow cast by a bright light behind a small figure made to look like a giant.
Good Christian, you have nothing to fear. Christ is risen! He is not here but is at the right hand of the Father ever interceding for us as our great High Priest. The ones who should fear are those unconverted souls who should always entertain the possibility the Bible is true and that the risen Christ will come back in judgment. Then the world will see all the evidence it needs to bow down to the risen Christ who returns in glory. Come Lord Jesus!
posted by prchdaword at 12:26 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home