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

[ralphinal]

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

I do not think that I was clear, and that is my fault because I left something out.

If you want to claim that God performed a miracle and removed proof that these people were here, fine. God can do that if he wants.

If you want to refute this study, all you have to do is see where it says that the MAJORITY of their genetic code came from one set of ancestors, not all of it.

Transubtantiation is a bad comparison because it is a miracle in and of itself. Perhaps a better one would be the claim that the Church is unbroken since Peter?

 

[chromatica]

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

There is no comparison. Science continues to find more evidence of Bible civilizations, cultures, practices, events, while it continues to find more evidence against the BoM. There is nothing that supports it. It exists in a vacuum of faith. Which, if that is what you like, then fine. I would just caution you that it is a poor way to determine truth, in its entirety. It leaves you wide open to a susceptibility to cults, who can claim any number of things based on faith alone. All you have to do is believe.

 

[ParkerD]

I do not think that I was clear, and that is my fault because I left something out.

If you want to claim that God performed a miracle and removed proof that these people were here, fine. God can do that if he wants.

If you want to refute this study, all you have to do is see where it says that the MAJORITY of their genetic code came from one set of ancestors, not all of it.

Transubtantiation is a bad comparison because it is a miracle in and of itself. Perhaps a better one would be the claim that the Church is unbroken since Peter?

Ralph,
I have gained greater respect for you through this dialogue, and appreciate your straightforwardness and clarity. I have by now read three of the four full studies, and wanted to point out by way of clarification, that one study sets the time frame parameters for the origination population as 2,000 BC - 40,000 BC.

Note that the Jaredite population group described in the Book of Mormon (Ether) are described as coming into the Americas at the time of the tower of Babel, which would be before 2,000 BC. Although the Book of Ether notes the internal warfare of this Jaredite population leading to the destruction of their “nation”, it is logical to assume that if the Jaredite people existed, then some of their group migrated away from the main population.

None of the articles I read refute the possibility (nor do they support it–the data is inconclusive) that a group could have been in the Americas in 2200 BC that was the founding peculiar genotype which has spread throughout the Americas and into Beringia. The UCDavis article summarized what the authors concluded was the most likely scenario, but certainly not presented in the studies as the only conclusive scenario.

I have no problem at all with reasonable scientific studies and their theories and conclusions. Most often, they use words that allow extensive room for alternative possibilities, as was the case in these studies and the abstract as I previously noted.

Again, thanks for your straightforwardness and well-thought comments. Peace to all, please.

 

[PaulDupre]

Science says a lot of things that contradict my religious beliefs and the religious beliefs of Christians.

Science contradicts Mormonism, but not Catholicism. Please list any scientific discoveries that contradict Catholicism. I have never seen any.

God love you,
Paul

 

[Religio71]

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

Kind Regards,
Finrock

How can they be irrelevant when the Book of Mormon is portrayed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as portraying real, historical events with real, historical peoples? Such studies should be relevant if the Book of Mormon is a historical document portraying a real history!

 

[ParkerD]

How can they be irrelevant when the Book of Mormon is portrayed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as portraying real, historical events with real, historical peoples? Such studies should be relevant if the Book of Mormon is a historical document portraying a real history!

Religio71,
As I have pointed out, I went to the source–one of the actual authors of the study in question here. I received an answer from them, and also have cited the summary abstract that refuted the original conclusion in the title of this thread.

The problem I find repeatedly happening is that what I would classify as “pseudo-scientists” grab onto limited, usually theoretical conclusions of real scientists and draw conclusions from the conclusions which were not warranted from the data nor were presented by the actual scientists. That is exactly what happened in this particular situation. It puzzles me, but then again it does not puzzle me, because people will believe what they want to believe, and draw their own conclusions regardless of contrary information. That’s just how people are.

 

[Religio71]

Religio71,
As I have pointed out, I went to the source–one of the actual authors of the study in question here. I received an answer from them, and also have cited the summary abstract that refuted the original conclusion in the title of this thread.

The problem I find repeatedly happening is that what I would classify as “pseudo-scientists” grab onto limited, usually theoretical conclusions of real scientists and draw conclusions from the conclusions which were not warranted from the data nor were presented by the actual scientists. That is exactly what happened in this particular situation. It puzzles me, but then again it does not puzzle me, because people will believe what they want to believe, and draw their own conclusions regardless of contrary information. That’s just how people are.

I agree. My point is that such studies are not irrelevant (as stated by Finrock) because the Book of Mormon is presented as an account of real events with real, historical people. Therefore studies that are looking at the origins of indigenous populations are also important as people attempt to place the Book of Mormon events in real history, if that is where they actually belong.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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, your questions are diversions from the OP. As is this post.

You are talking about things of faith, while this study addresses the aspect of the BoM that is not faith related.

When JS “brought forth” the BoM, he claimed very clearly and without a doubt that it was a history of ALL the people in the Americas. As scientific evidence shows that this is not the case, your church changes the story. With the DNA studies of mitochondrial DNA and anthropoligical studies, it became clear that one group of people migrated over the Bearing Strait. Mormons changed the story to, well, Lehi’s group intermarried. Now with this study, DNA that is passed by men and women confirms what the previous studies have shown. The Americas were populated by one unique group who originated in Asia.

Your answer to this is, ignore the facts, who cares, you will believe on faith alone with no reason other than that. This is not reasonable. This approach leaves you wide open for believing any idea that is presented to you as “from God”.

 

[Religio71]

Finrock, your questions are diversions from the OP. As is this post.

You are talking about things of faith, while this study addresses the aspect of the BoM that is not faith related.

When JS “brought forth” the BoM, he claimed very clearly and without a doubt that it was a history of ALL the people in the Americas. As scientific evidence shows that this is not the case, your church changes the story. With the DNA studies of mitochondrial DNA and anthropoligical studies, it became clear that one group of people migrated over the Bearing Strait. Mormons changed the story to, well, Lehi’s group intermarried. Now with this study, DNA that is passed by men and women confirms what the previous studies have shown. The Americas were populated by one unique group who originated in Asia.

Your answer to this is, ignore the facts, who cares, you will believe on faith alone with no reason other than that. This is not reasonable. This approach leaves you wide open for believing any idea that is presented to you as “from God”.

Agreed. Here are some excerpts from the Introduction to the Book of Mormon:

“It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.”

“The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites.”

"After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians. "

Therefore, as I’m sure you know, the Book of Mormon Lamanites are presented as the ancestors of the American Indians. So, studies that look into the genetics and the ancestry of the American Indians are important, and the issue is not simply up to faith. The Book of Mormon is explicitly presented as portraying historical events of historical people. This is not a matter of faith. It is a matter of history. Again, such studies are not irrelevant Finrock, and it’s interesting that you say they are.

 

[mattscar75]

Science contradicts Mormonism, but not Catholicism. Please list any scientific discoveries that contradict Catholicism. I have never seen any.

God love you,
Paul

Hello All,

I am going to make a few quick points on this. Wasn’t it official during the Middle ages that the Earth was Flat and the Universe rotated around the Earth? Wasn’t that the official belief of the Catholic Church back in the day?

If you go to any chemistry class you will learn that energy and elements always exist, kind of like a perpetual existence. In Section 93 of the Doctrine and Covenants it states that “the elements are eternal”. This section came out way before the electron microscope and the knowledge we now have of chemistry and all the other things realted to this topic. I appologize if this post is way off the OP.

 

[Religio71]

wait I thought we were talking about the Book of Mormon?

The Earth being flat was never Doctrine.

Anyway, again, the Book of Mormon says that it is about real events involving real peoples. Studies like the above cannot be deemed irrelevant if we are to learn more about the descendants of the Lamanites, who are among the ancestors of the American Indians.

 

[mattscar75]

Yes the discussion was about the Book of Mormon. But I read this thread and thought the remark deserved a reply. Back in the day it was heretical to state otherwise about the flatness of the Earth and the Universe rotating around the Earth as well. There were great thinkers and scientists that were put to death for such beliefs.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yet another diversion. The earth could be flat, oblong, square or round and it would not bring into question any of the historical realities of Christianity. No where in Christian scriptures does it state: this is an account of the flat earth. And now, that we know by scientific fact that earth is round, do we wonder about the reasonableness of such a scriptural statement as “the earth is flat”. And take it on faith that really, really, the earth is* flat*, and what science has proven is of no relevance.

Making comparisons to something that does not exist is not a comparison.

 

[ParkerD]

wait I thought we were talking about the Book of Mormon?

The Earth being flat was never Doctrine.

Anyway, again, the Book of Mormon says that it is about real events involving real peoples. Studies like the above cannot be deemed irrelevant if we are to learn more about the descendants of the Lamanites, who are among the ancestors of the American Indians.

Religio71,
I agree that the article is very relevant, and I’m actually glad of the interest that has been shown on this thread and an earlier thread in those studies. I hope those interested read as much as they can on the subject.

Your earlier post seems to have agreed with Rebecca (although I’m not sure) who wrote that “the Americas were populated by one unique group who originated in Asia”. This statement is simply not true. I’ve read three of the four studies, I have an email from one of the authors, I’ve read the abstract, and the studies are talking about an initial founding population group that had a unique DNA characteristic, and that founding population group either originated near Beringia or originated with that unique DNA characteristic in the Americas from which the founding group dispersed throughout the Americas.

The studies don’t say that other mixing DNA characterisics are not present in the DNA sampled among the descendants of the ancestral “ancient Americans”. In fact they say the exact opposite. There are many differences within the DNA of the various tribes sampled. An average of just under a third of the “ancient American” descendants they sampled had the unique trait of the specific DNA characteristic, and that unique trait was only in Beringia outside of America based on their sampling. Many other DNA differences are discussed, with no explanations as to why the differences or what other peoples might have been involved within the ancestral backgrounds of the various tribes. The studies were directed toward the founding initial population group.

Descent from the Jaredite nation would actually fit within the parameters of the findings within those studies, though not within the findings as presented in the UCDavis article. One of the studies bounded the time frame for the initial population group being in the Americas at around 2000 BC.

But one who reads the introduction to the Book of Mormon will say, “the Jaredite nation is said to have been part of ‘all were destroyed’”. I would agree that that is what the introduction and the Book of Ether imply. However, can we really imagine that every single person from the potential millions described as being in the Jaredite nation, came together for the final battles without the possibility of some tiny segment having gone off somewhere and not been known about by the main group or by the prophet Ether? I personally can’t, and have always thought that seemed quite implausible, particularly in light of the rest of the Book of Mormon that tells of many groups going off on their own from among the Nephites or the Lamanites.

I am only suggesting plausibility, not probability.

Also, the plausibility of Lamanite admixture of DNA into the DNA of some of the descendants within some of the tribal groups whose DNA was sampled, is still plausible. The studies do not preclude that possibility at all. They do imply that Hebraic ancestry or European ancestry was not the founding original ancestral group. (But note that as I originally stated on this thread, the Lamanite ancestry would be a miniscule part Hebraic, and most predominantly non-Hebraic.)

I hope a few people read this (please), because so often people jump to conclusions by reading a heading or a brief piece of writing, and think they are then an authority on a subject.

Scientists do thorough research, as best they can figure out to do. We as students ought to be thorough in our research also, or not assume that we are an authority on a subject.

Someone will probably say, “but Parker, you jumped to a conclusion at the beginning of this thread by talking about strictly maternal DNA when the articles talk about both maternal and paternal DNA.” I will accept that criticism. I have done more thorough research since my initial post here on this thread. I should have talked about both maternal and paternal DNA lines.

Peace and good day, all.

 

[puzzleannie]

Puzzle Annie,
“Personally I could not care less where they came from.”
“their history is fascinating study.”

yes, history of peoples is a fascinating study, but study it as history, not as religion and don’t try to make a religion out of history

 

[agbasinger]

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.

However, it begs the question, for both of us, how can we confirm the Bible is true?Finrock

1. Science is based on empiracle evidence. Transubstantion is not empiracle, and therefor outside of the realm of science.
2. Pontius Pilate asked the same question (what is truth?). We don’t have to confirm truth- we have to transformed by it.

 

[GodIsGracious]

The problem I find repeatedly happening is that what I would classify as “pseudo-scientists” grab onto limited, usually theoretical conclusions of real scientists and draw conclusions from the conclusions which were not warranted from the data nor were presented by the actual scientists. That is exactly what happened in this particular situation. It puzzles me, but then again it does not puzzle me, because people will believe what they want to believe, and draw their own conclusions regardless of contrary information. That’s just how people are.

Completely agree with this.

I would also say that people will do whatever they can to refute others to prove their own points.

 

[ralphinal]

If the study says that there is NO evidence of Middle Eastern/Semetic DNA in Native Americans, there is a problem for Mormons.

If the study says that MOST of the genetic code comes from one line, there is no problem, unless they hold to the statement that that line is entirely from a Tribe of Israel

 

[GodIsGracious]

If the study says that there is NO evidence of Middle Eastern/Semetic DNA in Native Americans, there is a problem for Mormons.

If the study says that MOST of the genetic code comes from one line, there is no problem, unless they hold to the statement that that line is entirely from a Tribe of Israel

Further, if you ask ANY scientist, NONE of them will say with absolute certainty that a possibility does or does not exist.

They just won’t do it.

So ParkerD’s email from one of the researchers doesn’t prove, or disprove, anything. As someone in the scientific community, if someone says, “Can X, Y, or Z, absolutely, positively occur?” Most will say no, because most, through their education, can come up with some sort of exception, albeit slim. I know I won’t do it. It doesn’t necessarily disprove what they are demonstrating.

However, they can and WILL say that some conclusions can be drawn with near certainty. You do have some basic premises and agreements. 1+1=2. And you go from there.

If you want to get right down to it, I can’t prove anyone exists, except myself.

 

[ParkerD]

Further, if you ask ANY scientist, NONE of them will say with absolute certainty that a possibility does or does not exist.

They just won’t do it.

So ParkerD’s email from one of the researchers doesn’t prove, or disprove, anything. As someone in the scientific community, if someone says, “Can X, Y, or Z, absolutely, positively occur?” Most will say no, because most, through their education, can come up with some sort of exception, albeit slim. I know I won’t do it. It doesn’t necessarily disprove what they are demonstrating.

However, they can and WILL say that some conclusions can be drawn with near certainty. You do have some basic premises and agreements. 1+1=2. And you go from there.

If you want to get right down to it, I can’t prove anyone exists, except myself.

God Is Gracious,
So I’m not sure if you’re debunking the scientists, their articles, the email I received from one of them, or what exactly you’re intending to say? The email was matter-of-fact and forthright. Do you want me to send another email to have the scientist give me their opinion of the “odds” of the origination in the Americas or the origination in Beringia? (I frankly would feel silly doing that.)

Have a good day.