The Dude Posted July 25, 2007 Posted July 25, 2007 We don't know where Sariah was from, let's remember, and she may well have been Asian. Lehi was a rich travelling merchant. Also, we don't know how many other groups of people came from other parts of the world other than the Nephites and Jaredites etc. I think that to assume that it has to be Lehi's DNA is negating the possibility and I would say the definite reality that other groups must have come and mingled their DNA with the groups who were already here. How do we know that the groups who came weren't Asian and came and slaughtered the natives here and there? Maybe a few times, taking over their DNA.DNA doesn't just tell us the main genetic founders were from Asia, it also tells us something about when they left Asia. This information is incompatible with the notion that Asian genetic founders came recently (like 600 BC) and managed to slaughter the natives and replace them. No, they came much earlier, at least 10,000 years ago.The temporal information comes from two lines of reasoning. One is DNA dating estimates, which look at the amount of diversity between related DNA markers to calculate the amount of time the markers have been separated. This gives an estimate with a wide range of uncertainty, so that if markers are considered in isolation, you might think some of them could have come in a BoM timeframe. However by considering the inter-relationships between markers (their family tree, a second source of information) it becomes clear that "possibly-recent" markers fall within the same cluster as "far-too-ancient" markers. In other words, the recent markers almost certainly arose within populations that had already been here for ~10,000 years and cannot be said to represent independent founding events by Book of Mormon people.
Doctor Steuss Posted July 25, 2007 Posted July 25, 2007 [...] No, they came much earlier, at least 10,000 years ago. [...]Three thousand years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax... (sorry, your avatar gave me a flashback)...Dr. Dude,Is this the dating that DNA gives? I was under the impression that archeology places humans in America (at least North America) approx. 40,000 years ago.
The Dude Posted July 25, 2007 Posted July 25, 2007 Three thousand years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax... (sorry, your avatar gave me a flashback)... Is this the dating that DNA gives? I was under the impression that archeology places humans in America (at least North America) approx. 40,000 years ago.There's no way to definitively equate these markers with the earliest archaeological sites. Like the scenario California suggested, the Asians that produced all of these DNA markers might have come second or third, but still ~10,000 years ago or earlier. Also, I think the really validated sites are still around 12,000-13,000 years ago. The really older sites in South America are still questioned.
Doctor Steuss Posted July 25, 2007 Posted July 25, 2007 [...]Also, I think the really validated sites are still around 12,000-13,000 years ago. The really older sites in South America are still questioned.I didn't know the whole Clovis/pre-Clovis/Solutrean debate was still going on. But, after doing a little digging, it appears that you are correct and the latest dating that there seems to be some form of consensus on is 11,500-17,500 BP. As for South America... I'll take your word on it (as all I really know about SA is Kennewick/Patrick Stewart Man -- 9,300 BP).
cdowis Posted July 25, 2007 Posted July 25, 2007 The temporal information comes from two lines of reasoning. One is DNA dating estimates, which look at the amount of diversity between related DNA markers to calculate the amount of time the markers have been separated. This gives an estimate with a wide range of uncertainty, so that if markers are considered in isolation, you might think some of them could have come in a BoM timeframe. However by considering the inter-relationships between markers (their family tree, a second source of information) it becomes clear that "possibly-recent" markers fall within the same cluster as "far-too-ancient" markers. In other words, the recent markers almost certainly arose within populations that had already been here for ~10,000 years and cannot be said to represent independent founding events by Book of Mormon people.Perhaps you can put this into context of the direct relationship between the full blooded Amerindian and the woman from Greece.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.