New Study: Native Americans all descend from a single ancesteral group

[Finrock]

Good afternoon everyone! I’m just making a general post about this topic. It isn’t necessarily directed at anyone in particular.

I have read the link and I guess this is pretty neat. I don’t know, I’m not an expert on these things, so I can’t really say much about it, yea or nay. I’m assuming it’s all good research.

I guess my general sentiment is: “So what?” I mean, I understand that the OP is apparently providing this as proof that there were no Nephites in the Americas, and by inference, the Book of Mormon is false. Now, I can understand an Atheist, for instance, relying on scientific data to prove or disprove a religion, but it seems kind of ironic for a Christian to use scientific data to either prove or disprove a religion. As an example to illustrate my point, scientist, at various times, have tested consecrated bread and wine of the Catholic Eucharist. Almost invariably, they have concluded, without a doubt, that what you have here is actually just bread and actually just wine. Not actually flesh and not actually blood. Now, I’m not arguing against transubstantiation, it’s not my intention and I have no desire to. But, I do want to point out that even in light of the strongest scientific proof against transubstantiation, has this caused the faith of millions of Catholics to cease? Of course not! And why not? I would venture to guess it is because their faith in the Eucharist is not contingent upon scientific validation! They have received their witness some other way, and rightfully so, these faithful Catholics are not relying on the “arm of flesh” to substantiate their religion.

Hence, the irony in this thread. Man is a flaky, fleeting thing. If I were to put my trust in his wisdom and his knowledge, I would be tossed to and fro, never knowing where I stand. However, God is immovable and steady. His wisdom is perfect and His knowledge is sure. If I put my trust in Him, then my faith has been built on an immovable foundation. You can trust science if you want, but as for me and my house, I will trust the Lord God Almighty.

In short, studies like this are irrelevant in matters of faith.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[RebeccaJ]

Finrock, everything about our belief of the Eucharist, requires an understanding that it is a mystery to us because it is the work of God and cannot be explained. However, we don’t believe it just because we like to believe it. We believe it because it is what Jesus has taught us. He said, This IS my BODY.

For you to make this comparison, I am thinking that you are claiming God changed the DNA of the inhabitants of the Americas. A sort of transubstantiation of DNA. I would like to know where in your scriptures God has revealed this.

Faith and reason are not at odds.

 

[ralphinal]

Good afternoon everyone! I’m just making a general post about this topic. It isn’t necessarily directed at anyone in particular.

I have read the link and I guess this is pretty neat. I don’t know, I’m not an expert on these things, so I can’t really say much about it, yea or nay. I’m assuming it’s all good research.

I guess my general sentiment is: “So what?” I mean, I understand that the OP is apparently providing this as proof that there were no Nephites in the Americas, and by inference, the Book of Mormon is false. Now, I can understand an Atheist, for instance, relying on scientific data to prove or disprove a religion, but it seems kind of ironic for a Christian to use scientific data to either prove or disprove a religion. As an example to illustrate my point, scientist, at various times, have tested consecrated bread and wine of the Catholic Eucharist. Almost invariably, they have concluded, without a doubt, that what you have here is actually just bread and actually just wine. Not actually flesh and not actually blood. Now, I’m not arguing against transubstantiation, it’s not my intention and I have no desire to. But, I do want to point out that even in light of the strongest scientific proof against transubstantiation, has this caused the faith of millions of Catholics to cease? Of course not! And why not? I would venture to guess it is because their faith in the Eucharist is not contingent upon scientific validation! They have received their witness some other way, and rightfully so, these faithful Catholics are not relying on the “arm of flesh” to substantiate their religion.

Hence, the irony in this thread. Man is a flaky, fleeting thing. If I were to put my trust in his wisdom and his knowledge, I would be tossed to and fro, never knowing where I stand. However, God is immovable and steady. His wisdom is perfect and His knowledge is sure. If I put my trust in Him, then my faith has been built on an immovable foundation. You can trust science if you want, but as for me and my house, I will trust the Lord God Almighty.

In short, studies like this are irrelevant in matters of faith.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Basically, understanding Transubstantiation requires us to understand what Essence is and What Accidents are. Any scientific test is only testing Accidents. the essence cannot be tested. What will ALWAYS be seen as bread and wine (barring a Eucharistic miracle) no longer has the essence of bread and wine.

However, this is another issue completely. Either people were or were not in a place at a time. If there are no signs of them being there, why should we say that they were? What happened to the trace evidence?

 

[Finrock]

Finrock, everything about our belief of the Eucharist, requires an understanding that it is a mystery to us because it is the work of God and cannot be explained. However, we don’t believe it just because we like to believe it. We believe it because it is what Jesus has taught us. He said, This IS my BODY.

For you to make this comparison, I am thinking that you are claiming God changed the DNA of the inhabitants of the Americas. A sort of transubstantiation of DNA. I would like to know where in your scriptures God has revealed this.

Faith and reason are not at odds.

Good afternoon RebeccaJ! How are you today? Hopefully you are well!

I understand where you are coming from in regards to the Eucharist. As I stated, I isn’t my intent to discuss the Eucharist, I was only using it to make my point. Just to clarify, I’m wasn’t implying or suggesting in any way that I believe God changed the DNA of the inhabitants of the Americas. That isn’t what I was trying to say at all. Instead of transubstantiation, as an example of where science and faith contradict, I could have used the doctrine of the virgin birth, or a number of other religious beliefs that supposedly science has “proven” to be impossible. My point is that Christians hold many beliefs that are disproven (or not proven) by science, yet this doesn’t affect their faith in those beliefs. That is because their beliefs aren’t grounded in science, it is grounded in something else (usually a mixture of reason and spiritual experiences). In short, I was saying that in regards to matters of proving religion, scientific studies are irrelevant.

In your case, for example, you believe transubstantiation to be real because you believe that the Bible is true. For me, a believing Christian as yourself, that is fine. I accept the Bible as authoritative, even if we might differ in our interpretation of it. However, it begs the question, for both of us, how can we confirm the Bible is true? My point is that we can either rely on man to provide proof for the validity of the Bible, for instance, or we can rely on God to provide proof that the Bible is true. I, personally, think it is folly to build our faith on the basis of scientific proof (if such a thing is even possible). I have chosen to rely on God as the foundation of my faith, therefore, science will never affect my faith (either way) because my faith was never built on a foundation of scientific fact and proof.

Finally, as far as your comment that faith and reason are not at odds, I absolutely agree. And to clarify, in my post I was not saying that faith and reason are at odds or even implying it.

Thanks for reading and responding to my post. Hopefully I’ve clarified my message.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[RebeccaJ]

Finally, as far as your comment that faith and reason are not at odds, I absolutely agree. And to clarify, in my post I was not saying that faith and reason are at odds or even implying it.

Thanks for reading and responding to my post. Hopefully I’ve clarified my message.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Fine, but I have no I idea how you have reasoned that the BoM is “true”.

 

[Stephen168]

Good afternoon everyone! I’m just making a general post about this topic. It isn’t necessarily directed at anyone in particular.

I have read the link and I guess this is pretty neat. I don’t know, I’m not an expert on these things, so I can’t really say much about it, yea or nay. I’m assuming it’s all good research.

I guess my general sentiment is: “So what?” I mean, I understand that the OP is apparently providing this as proof that there were no Nephites in the Americas, and by inference, the Book of Mormon is false. Now, I can understand an Atheist, for instance, relying on scientific data to prove or disprove a religion, but it seems kind of ironic for a Christian to use scientific data to either prove or disprove a religion.

I don’t see any attempt in the OP to disprove a religion. I see an attempt to add to the body of scientific information that proves the Book of Mormon is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be.

In short, studies like this are irrelevant in matters of faith.

True, that is all you have; no science, history or reason will support Mormonism

 

[Finrock]

Basically, understanding Transubstantiation requires us to understand what Essence is and What Accidents are. Any scientific test is only testing Accidents. the essence cannot be tested. What will ALWAYS be seen as bread and wine (barring a Eucharistic miracle) no longer has the essence of bread and wine.

However, this is another issue completely. Either people were or were not in a place at a time. If there are no signs of them being there, why should we say that they were? What happened to the trace evidence?

Good afternoon ralphinal! Thanks for your post. I hope you are feeling terrific today.

I am familiar with transubstantiation and the argument of essence and accidents. In so far as my rational mind can comprehend it, I understand the belief and it’s rationale. As I pointed out to RebeccaJ, what transubstantiation is and whether it is true or not, doesn’t matter to what I am trying to say. What’s important is that Christians (and other religions) believe in things that science has proven (to the extent possible) to be false or science cannot prove to be true. And, I am stating, despite scientific evidence to the contrary of certain Christian beliefs, people still believe them and have faith in them. This is so, because most Christian’s faith is not grounded in science, but in spiritual witnesses and proofs.

In regards to this particular thread, the OP is offering up scientific data in an apparent attempt to show the falsity of the Book of Mormon. My question is: So what if science says that Native Amercians decended from a single ancestral group? Science says a lot of things that contradict my religious beliefs and the religious beliefs of Christians. If scientific evidence in the past hasn’t stopped me from believing in, let say the resurrection, why should scientific evidence stop me from believing in the Book of Mormon? It would be ironic for a Christian to reject a subject of faith, like the Book of Mormon, on the basis of science, when science rejects so many of their own beliefs. Has scientific proof contradicting transubstantiation stopped the faithful Catholic from believing in this miracle? Of course not. The faithful Catholic relies on faith built upon the foundation of their spiritual experiences and testimonies and this is how it should be. They are relying on God and not on man to support their faith.

Now, you asked some questions. To illustrate my point, I will ask the same questions to you within the context of transubstantiation. Please understand that I’m not asking you to prove transubstantiation, but I do want you to understand my point and I think this exercise might be helpful. So, I could just as easily ask you or anyone: If there are no signs that the bread and the wine is actually flesh and actually blood, then why should we say that they are actually flesh and actually blood? Of course, for you, it is a matter of faith. It doesn’t matter to you, I’m assuming, that when science studies consecrated bread and wine, they can see no signs that it is anything but bread and wine. You have faith in this miracle, and science be damned! Based on this, it wouldn’t make sense to turn around and say: “However, science proves that the Book of Mormon is false, therefore the Book of Mormon is false!” (If nothing else, it would be hypocritical).

In the end, I am saying that the Book of Mormon, like transubstantiation, is a matter of faith and we shouldn’t go to science to discover it’s validity, we should turn to God, like we do in all other matters of faith, to discover it’s truthfulness. Put your trust in God and not in the arm of flesh. Man is fickle and so is his knowledge, and what he thinks he knows today, might and has changed, tomorrow.

I hope I’ve been succesful in clearing up my point. I’m not a very good communicator, but I do try.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Finrock]

Fine, but I have no I idea how you have reasoned that the BoM is “true”.

RebeccaJ,

If God tells you something is true, isn’t it reasonable to believe Him and to obey Him? I can’t think of anything more reasonable than believing God. In fact, I would be an irrational fool to ignore God’s voice.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[ParkerD]

Again:

Here is the conclusion as summarized in the abstract of this particular study:

“Using a new method for estimating the time to the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all sampled copies of an allele on the basis of an estimate of the length of the genealogy descended from the MRCA, we calculate the mean time to the MRCA of the 9-repeat allele to be between 7,325 and 39,900 years, depending on the demographic model used. The results support the hypothesis that all modern Native Americans and Western Beringians trace a large portion of their ancestry to a single founding population that may have been isolated from other Asian populations prior to expanding into the Americas.”

A reader who infers that the above statement asserts that “Native Americans all descend from a single ancestral group” has ignored the words “large portion” and “may”. “Portion” has never meant “all”. “May” has never meant “absolutely”.

But those who want this crutch, can use it just as well as any other crutch.

Thanks again, Ralph, for asking the right question.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ,

If God tells you something is true, isn’t it reasonable to believe Him and to obey Him? I can’t think of anything more reasonable than believing God. In fact, I would be an irrational fool to ignore God’s voice.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Many people have claimed that God has told them many things.

 

[Finrock]

Many people have claimed that God has told them many things.

RebeccaJ,

This is very true. By-the-way, thank you, RebeccaJ, for taking part in this dialogue up to this point.

For the sake of understanding and agreement, let’s just assume that we know it is God. Knowing that it is God who is speaking, wouldn’t you agree that it is reasonable at that point to believe God? Further, wouldn’t you agree that it would be irrational and foolish to ignore Him?

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Stephen168]

RebeccaJ,

This is very true. By-the-way, thank you, RebeccaJ, for taking part in this dialogue up to this point.

For the sake of understanding and agreement, let’s just assume that we know it is God. Knowing that it is God who is speaking, wouldn’t you agree that it is reasonable at that point to believe God? Further, wouldn’t you agree that it would be irrational and foolish to ignore Him?

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Are you suggesting the Book of Mormon is a miracle?

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ,

This is very true. By-the-way, thank you, RebeccaJ, for taking part in this dialogue up to this point.

For the sake of understanding and agreement, let’s just assume that we know it is God. Knowing that it is God who is speaking, wouldn’t you agree that it is reasonable at that point to believe God? Further, wouldn’t you agree that it would be irrational and foolish to ignore Him?

Kind Regards,
Finrock

I don’t believe that God has given us the ability to reason without expecting us to use what He has given us.

 

[Finrock]

Are you suggesting the Book of Mormon is a miracle?

Hello Stephen168! Nice to meet you. I hope you are well today!

Thank you for the question. In this thread, I haven’t suggested that the Book of Mormon is a miracle, no. But, I certainly believe it came about in a miraculous way (and that we have it at all is a miracle) and it requires faith to believe in the of the Book of Mormon, just as it requires faith to believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I further believe that when it comes to questions of faith, we shouldn’t turn to science for the answers, but we should turn to God.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Stephen168]

Hello Stephen168! Nice to meet you. I hope you are well today!

Thank you for the question. In this thread, I haven’t suggested that the Book of Mormon is a miracle, no. But, I certainly believe it came about in a miraculous way (and that we have it at all is a miracle) and it requires faith to believe in the of the Book of Mormon, just as it requires faith to believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I further believe that when it comes to questions of faith, we shouldn’t turn to science for the answers, but we should turn to God.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

God made the world we live in and God would not tell us something that did not agree with what he made. Except for the occasional miracle, God and science agree. So if a voice is telling you something is true contrary to science, then you are not hearing God. God reveals himself to us through his creation, so using science is not contrary to faith or turning away from God.

 

[Finrock]

I don’t believe that God has given us the ability to reason without expecting us to use what He has given us.

RebeccaJ,

I agree with your statement. You must realize, however, that this statement doesn’t answer the questions in my post? Perhaps you are leerie of my motives behind my questions? If so, may I assuage your concerns, by stating that I am simply motivated to reach a common ground. Also, I am not trying to trap you in to agreeing with me.

Perhaps, if I rephrase my questions so that they couldn’t possibly suggest your agreement with my religious views, they will be easier for you to answer:

Let’s assume, for the sake of this dialogue, your interpretation and understanding of the Bible is true.

Knowing that the Bible is true, wouldn’t you agree that it is reasonable to believe Jesus when he says in the Bible that the bread and wine truly is His body and truly is His blood? Further, knowing that the Bible is true, wouldn’t you agree that it would be irrational and foolish to ignore what Jesus says about the Eucharist?

Of course, if you aren’t comfortable in continuing the dialogue, I will not hold it against you and I thank you for taking the time out of your day to speak with me. I’ve enjoyed it!

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Finrock]

God made the world we live in and God would not tell us something that did not agree with what he made. Except for the occasional miracle, God and science agree. So if a voice is telling you something is true contrary to science, then you are not hearing God. God reveals himself to us through his creation, so using science is not contrary to faith or turning away from God.

Thanks, Stephen168, for sharing your point-of-view. Science can be useful for some, I agree. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think science is bad. I believe that true science and true religion will always be in agreement. But, ultimately, the logical conclusion of even your line of reasoning, begs the question: How do you know God uses science to reveal truth? Are we to take it as simply a priori knowledge? Philosophically speaking, that is problematic. I believe that the Holy Ghost is what God gave us to test truth with. He can reveal to our minds and to our hearts, what is true. I feel more comfortable trusting the Holy Spirit, then I do in measuring truth claims up against science. This is how the atheist do it. No truth exist accept the truth that science has revealed, according to them. I think God is the measure of all truth and He has given us a more reliable source to tap in to then the fickle and fallible minds of mankind.

I think we simply have a philosophical disagreement here. I respect your opinion, however. Thank you.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Stephen168]

I believe that true science and true religion will always be in agreement.
I feel more comfortable trusting the Holy Spirit, then I do in measuring truth claims up against science.

I agree, true science tells us the Book of Mormon is a 19th century fiction which is contrary to what Joseph Smith claimed it to be. So Mormonism is not true. And when a spirit tells you otherwise it is not the Holy Spirit you are hearing.

 

[luisfigueroa24]

If God tells you something is true, isn’t it reasonable to believe Him and to obey Him? I can’t think of anything more reasonable than believing God. In fact, I would be an irrational fool to ignore God’s voice.

When did God said that the BoM was true?

Unlike Joseph Smith, Jesus was always able to put His money where His mouth was, and so the prophets of God before Him, and so His apostles and disciples after Him. How did Joseph Smith proved himself? How the LDS prophets prove themselves? If God tells you something is true, then why don’t you believe it?

 

[ParkerD]

Correct. Further, this study rules out the possiblity of it being random or a result of natural selection that they have this common marker.

Now, what does that mean?

Ralph and others,
Because of my personal genuine interest in this topic and some questions I had, I emailed one of the authors of the study this morning, and received a very kind explanatory email back this afternoon. Rather than copy the email or disclose which author (so they are not deluged with more emails), I hope I may be trusted in copying one of my questions and the author’s answer, here:

“I have also wondered why the assumption is being made that the origin ancestors originated from isolation near Beringia, rather than possibly originating somewhere in the Americas and spreading from there to Beringia as well as throughout the Americas? Is there not the possibility of either potential point of origin? I would very much appreciate some clarification on these questions.” (My question)

(The answer): "However, unless the 9-repeat allele is frequent or widely distributed across Eurasia (and our sampling was sufficient to show that it is neither), then it is unlikely that multiple migrations from Eurasia would “pick up” the 9-repeat allele, so we conclude that it developed in the ancestors of Native Americans either after or not long before they separated from other peoples.

As to the second question, yes, we think it is entirely possible that the 9-repeat allele originated in the North American side of Beringia. We can’t say with the current data. These two possibilities have been discussed by others in my field as well.

Please let me know if you have any further questions."

I need to read the full studies (there are four), and I will, but I thought I would share this for the time being. I sincerely appreciate the response which was so immediate.

Have a good evening, all.