DNA evidence conclusively proves Native Americans did not come from the Middle East, so how does a Mormon explain this?

[BartBurk]

There are both DNA evidences and archeological evidences that the origins of ancient civilizations who lived in North, Central and South America did not have merely one source of ancestry, and had complex civilizations–(who’d of thought?!)

Here are some examples of articles about this topic, of interest to informed, thinking people of all kinds and backgrounds:

pages.interlog.com/~gilgames/cahokia.htm

Another:

news.preview.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080508-first-americans.html

A link to many links about this subject:

jms.aps.edu/JMS/Lopez/link1.htm

Peace to all readers.

I did not find any links on these pages which indicated that Native Americans came from Israel. I found some that indicated population migration several thousand years before the supposed arrival of the Nephites and Lamanites. The articles I found indicated the population came from Asia. Do you have a specific item that you have found in the above links which indicates Native Americans came from the Middle East?

 

[ParkerD]

I did not find any links on these pages which indicated that Native Americans came from Israel. I found some that indicated population migration several thousand years before the supposed arrival of the Nephites and Lamanites. The articles I found indicated the population came from Asia. Do you have a specific item that you have found in the above links which indicates Native Americans came from the Middle East?

BartBurk,

What a person does well to understand is that there is not one “place” where “Native Americans came from”–there are many places where the many, many tribal ancestors of those identified as “Native Americans” came from, including some by water craft.

Here is a link to a brief summary article about Haplogroup X which is a small ancestral DNA haplogroup that occurs in some Native Americans and some European and Middle Eastern ancestral groups:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9837837

It shows that the use of a word such as “conclusively” is a complete misnomer about DNA of “Native Americans”. This is a far more complicated subject than a novice assumes.

 

[zaffiroborant]

BartBurk;7706371:

I did not find any links on these pages which indicated that Native Americans came from Israel. I found some that indicated population migration several thousand years before the supposed arrival of the Nephites and Lamanites. The articles I found indicated the population came from Asia. Do you have a specific item that you have found in the above links which indicates Native Americans came from the Middle East?

BartBurk,

What a person does well to understand is that there is not one “place” where “Native Americans came from”–there are many places where the many, many tribal ancestors of those identified as “Native Americans” came from, including some by water craft.

Here is a link to a brief summary article about Haplogroup X which is a small ancestral DNA haplogroup that occurs in some Native Americans and some European and Middle Eastern ancestral groups:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9837837

It shows that the use of a word such as “conclusively” is a complete misnomer about DNA of “Native Americans”. This is a far more complicated subject than a novice assumes.

From the site Parker gave

Abstract

On the basis of comprehensive RFLP analysis, it has been inferred that approximately 97% of Native American mtDNAs belong to one of four major founding mtDNA lineages, designated haplogroups “A”-“D.” It has been proposed that a fifth mtDNA haplogroup (haplogroup X) represents a minor founding lineage in Native Americans. Unlike haplogroups A-D, haplogroup X is also found at low frequencies in modern European populations. To investigate the origins, diversity, and continental relationships of this haplogroup, we performed mtDNA high-resolution RFLP and complete control region (CR) sequence analysis on 22 putative Native American haplogroup X and 14 putative European haplogroup X mtDNAs. The results identified a consensus haplogroup X motif that characterizes our European and Native American samples. Among Native Americans, haplogroup X appears to be essentially restricted to northern Amerindian groups, including the Ojibwa, the Nuu-Chah-Nulth, the Sioux, and the Yakima, although we also observed this haplogroup in the Na-Dene-speaking Navajo. Median network analysis indicated that European and Native American haplogroup X mtDNAs, although distinct, nevertheless are distantly related to each other. Time estimates for the arrival of X in North America are 12,000-36,000 years ago, depending on the number of assumed founders, thus supporting the conclusion that the peoples harboring haplogroup X were among the original founders of Native American populations. To date, haplogroup X has not been unambiguously identified in Asia, raising the possibility that some Native American founders were of Caucasian ancestry.

It seems to say what Bart said.

 

[ParkerD]

From the site Parker gave

It seems to say what Bart said.

Bart had remarked about the origins “several thousand years before…”. Are you or is Bart saying that these origins pre-date Adam and Eve?

(Note: I am not so tied to Carbon-14 dating or other types of archeological dating that yield the 10,000 to 100,000 year old origins theories.'Could be right, but 'could be wrong.)

 

[PaulDupre]

Again, why don’t you consider a Flood that dealt with the middle east and some of europe only?

Because water seeks its own level.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Bart had remarked about the origins “several thousand years before…”. Are you or is Bart saying that these origins pre-date Adam and Eve?

(Note: I am not so tied to Carbon-14 dating or other types of archeological dating that yield the 10,000 to 100,000 year old origins theories.'Could be right, but 'could be wrong.)

I didn’t mention anything about Adam and Eve (and nothing mentioned carbon-14 dating) just noted that the site you linked to said pretty much the same thing Bart said. It seems that you thought enough of what was said to post a link to it, so what is it you find compelling in the link? If you don’t agree to the time frame (12,000 to 36,000 years ago) why do you bother to post a link, "here’s something that supports my view although I don’t agree with the science that underlies it, and if you ignore the science part and say it happened 2,500 years ago…Bullseye!"
(Note I don’t think tracing migration through DNA uses carbon-14 dating)

So why are you bringing up Adam & Eve and carbon dating??

 

[ParkerD]

I didn’t mention anything about Adam and Eve (and nothing mentioned carbon-14 dating) just noted that the site you linked to said pretty much the same thing Bart said. It seems that you thought enough of what was said to post a link to it, so what is it you find compelling in the link? If you don’t agree to the time frame (12,000 to 36,000 years ago) why do you bother to post a link, "here’s something that supports my view although I don’t agree with the science that underlies it, and if you ignore the science part and say it happened 2,500 years ago…Bullseye!"
(Note I don’t think tracing migration through DNA uses carbon-14 dating)

So why are you bringing up Adam & Eve and carbon dating??

Zaffiroborant,

My point in posting the link was to show that there are more origins of “Ancient Americans” than one place, and to show that it is a more complicated subject than the simple statement “conclusively proves…”. The DNA science and the dating sciences are different realms of science.

DNA science is also a much younger subject than the dating sciences, so the conclusions that are being drawn from results in that science are never 100% all-inclusive of the entire descendant population of “Ancient Americans”. Anyone who reads articles on this subject for getting even a small depth of knowledge on the subject, finds that out quickly.

Perhaps my memory is incorrect, but if I do happen to remember correctly then it seems to me that you participated in a conversation where it was brought up that National Geographic had a fairly recent article about the highly developed “Mound Builders” and the uncertainty about their origin ancestry.

Any statement that encompasses the words “conclusively proves” about this kind of subject, shows that the “student” has not done “their homework” before making such a statement.

 

[ClamDigger]

To be fair, are the habits worn by members of various religious orders silly to you?
The temple garments worn by Mormons who have been thru the temple and made certain covenants are to remind them of those very covenants.

How is that specifically different from members of religious communities who wear habits, which also are to be reminders of the the vows they have made???

Exactly. I’m sure to non-Catholics our little strips of cloth over our shoulders (scapulars) probably look very silly. In fact, they might even term them “special underwear”, since most of us wear them under our regular clothes.

 

[ClamDigger]

A “complete” lack of evidence is hardly descriptive of the BoM civilizations. Native Americans did build cities, and so forth, so there is some evidence at least.

Except for the fact that their scripture wasn’t “discovered” (written) until after we’d already made those discoveries.

 

[BartBurk]

Zaffiroborant,

My point in posting the link was to show that there are more origins of “Ancient Americans” than one place, and to show that it is a more complicated subject than the simple statement “conclusively proves…”. The DNA science and the dating sciences are different realms of science.

DNA science is also a much younger subject than the dating sciences, so the conclusions that are being drawn from results in that science are never 100% all-inclusive of the entire descendant population of “Ancient Americans”. Anyone who reads articles on this subject for getting even a small depth of knowledge on the subject, finds that out quickly.

Perhaps my memory is incorrect, but if I do happen to remember correctly then it seems to me that you participated in a conversation where it was brought up that National Geographic had a fairly recent article about the highly developed “Mound Builders” and the uncertainty about their origin ancestry.

Any statement that encompasses the words “conclusively proves” about this kind of subject, shows that the “student” has not done “their homework” before making such a statement.

So do you believe there were people in America 14,000 years ago? The only way any of the Haplogroup X scenarios support the Book of Mormon would be if we limit the Haplogroup X introduction to 600 B.C. I would be willing to go there, but don’t believe the Haplogroup X really gives us any reason to believe the Book of Mormon – I quit believing in the Book of Mormon long before the DNA evidence. Beyond that the Haplogroup X marker would have to come from the Middle East, not Europe.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiroborant,

Perhaps my memory is incorrect, but if I do happen to remember correctly then it seems to me that you participated in a conversation where it was brought up that National Geographic had a fairly recent article about the highly developed “Mound Builders” and the uncertainty about their origin ancestry.

.

Isn’t that the thread in which you said the Smithsonian deliberately destroyed the mounds ?

 

[ParkerD]

Isn’t that the thread in which you said the Smithsonian deliberately destroyed the mounds ?

No, I was referring to your post #834 on the “LDS Church puts a date on the Great Apostasy” thread, and which had the following link that you provided in that post:

ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/01/cahokia/hodges-text/1

It does, however, say that some of the people involved in the United States were not all that interested in preserving the historical and archeological findings involving the remnants of the Cahokia civilization.

 

[zaffiroborant]

No, I was referring to your post #834 on the “LDS Church puts a date on the Great Apostasy” thread, and which had the following link that you provided in that post:

ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/01/cahokia/hodges-text/1

It does, however, say that some of the people involved in the United States were not all that interested in preserving the historical and archeological findings involving the remnants of the Cahokia civilization.

My mistake it was the *Where did the Book of Mormon take place? *thread that you said that.