Native Americans Have West Eurasian Origins

[JAHS]

Oldest human genome reveals less of an East Asian ancestry than thought

"Prevailing theories suggest that Native Americans are descended from a group of East Asians who crossed the Bering Sea via a land bridge perhaps 16,500 years ago, though some sites may evidence an earlier arrival. This study changes this idea because it shows that a significant minority of Native American ancestry actually derives not from East Asia but from a people related to present-day western Eurasians," 

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131120-science-native-american-people-migration-siberia-genetics/

 

[thesometimesaint]

Still way too early for the Lehites, but it does show it was possible for Lehi to have done it.

[blooit]

"Nearly one-third of Native American genes come from west Eurasian people linked to the Middle East and Europe, rather than entirely from East Asians as previously thought, according to a newly sequenced genome."

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131120-science-native-american-people-migration-siberia-genetics/

 

This is very interesting information.  I'm getting old enough that I don't get as excited about scientific finds that may provide some credibility to Book of Mormon historicity though.  I've watched these kind of things before, and those who oppose Mormonism seem to me to dig their heels in for a while and then move on to the next argument.  I remember when the arguments included, "Native Americans didn't have walls and fortifications and large scale wars."  When this was proven beyond almost any doubt, it moved to something else.

 

I am not one of those guys who sees a baptismal font in every hole in the ground.  While earning a graduate degree in Mesoamerican Archaeology, I prided myself on avoiding "over enthusiasm."  But I have to say that if it were not for a strong academic bias against the Book of Mormon, it would have to be agreed that it is at least a historical document.  It is not possible to prove it's divinity (academically), but the amount of historical parallels in any other arena would be considered at least "historically based" (in my humble opinion of course).

 

Anyway, this is an interesting find and one that I have expected for a while.  It will be interesting to see the response of the  "DNA and the Book of Mormon" crowd.

[JAHS]

It's just an example of how new things are being discovered which can potentially change prevailing theories about the peopling of the Americas.

More to come?

[Rivers]

DNA from a 24,000 year old bone? Isn't that a little early to verify anything in the Book of Mormon?

Very interesting nonetheless.

[blooit]

DNA from a 24,000 year old bone? Isn't that a little early to verify anything in the Book of Mormon?

Very interesting nonetheless.

 

No offense, but your comment shows a misconception of archaeology, "proof," and my post.  

[poulsenll]

It also means that any evidence of European DNA in American genetics can not be ignored by claiming that it results from recent introduction by the Spanish conquest.

 

Larry P

[jkwilliams]

No offense, but your comment shows a misconception of archaeology, "proof," and my post.  

 

Can you please explain the significance of this new discovery to you? I'm trying, but I don't see the relevance.

[poulsenll]

It also means data on European genes in modern Mesoamerican populations can not be ignored by claiming modern contamination by the Spanish conquest.

Larry P

[thesometimesaint]

It's just an example of how new things are being discovered which can potentially change prevailing theories about the peopling of the Americas.

More to come?

 

It is an interesting find. Hopeful for a whole lot more to come. Who knows maybe today we'll find a road sign that says Zarahemla next 5 exist.

[blooit]

Academically?  The presence of one bone can suggest that there were anywhere from one to many individuals living in the americas who were not from east asia.  This goes against a couple of previously held notions including:

• All migration to the americas came from east asia
• DNA evidence has proven that no middle eastern DNA exists among Native Americans

Archaeologically speaking, one bone is a lot.   Much of what we know about evolution, society, etc. is built on one bone, one skull, or one artifact.  We just don't have much to go on.

 

Religiously?  As a Mormon, I often get told that the Book of Mormon has been proven false, that no evidence whatsoever exists to back it up.  This simply is not true. So to me, this is simply another small piece of a very big, and growing, body of evidence that shows, at least, that the Book of Mormon is a historical record.  I do not believe it will ever be "proven" because nothing is ever proven until a large group of academics are willing to embrace something.  This will not happen IMHO, but I do believe that a couple frequently spouted lines about the BOM being proven false through DNA have now been shut down, and that is kind of nice.

[Darren10]

Who knows maybe today we'll find a road sign that says Zarahemla next 5 exist.

 

That would be a nice find.

[mfbukowski]

If archaeology can't prove the BOM false it also can't prove it true.

 

But this is an interesting passage in the article and sounds a tad familiar.

While the land bridge still formed the gateway to America, the study now portrays Native Americans as a group derived from the meeting of two different populations, one ancestral to East Asians and the other related to western Eurasians, explained Willerslev, whose research was published in the November 20 edition of the journal Nature.

 

And regarding the age of the bone, I am not sure how relevant that would be to the implications regarding middle eastern migrations to the New World, if this is the case:

Many questions remain unanswered, including where and when the mixing of west Eurasian and East Asian populations occurred.

 

"It could have been somewhere in Siberia or potentially in the New World," Willerslev said.

 

"I think it's much more likely that it occurred in the Old World. But the only way to address that question would be to sequence more ancient skeletons of Native Americans and also Siberians."

 

That seems to imply that the mixing could have occurred in the New World, later than the date of the discovered bone,

[katherine the great]

I'm a working bioarchaeologist and I saw the article in Nature Magazine on the department blog today.  Something to keep in mind: These remains are 24 thousand years old. There is a second bone from the same site that is 17,000 years old that yielded similar genetic information.  They cannot possibly have anything directly to do with the Book of Mormon--except possibly to describe the ancestry of the people already there when the first BOM characters arrived in the New World.  To me, the most exciting part of this find is the knowledge that humans were able to actually inhabit this ferociously cold northern area right in the middle of the last glacial maximum!

[AndyDnom]

I don't see what relevance something 25,000 years old would have to the book of mormon. All it seems to show to me, is that humans are not the products of some adam and eve garden of eden 5,000 year plan, and certainly not the product of a world that emerged after a global flood 4,000 years ago.

[katherine the great]

Still way too early for the Lehites, but it does show it was possible for Lehi to have done it.

How does it show this?

[Palerider]

I've long believed that America was peopled from a number of different directions including Europe and Asia.

The archaeology of early american implements has been pointing in that direction for a few years now.

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1406/segments/1406-4.htm

Even if they found semitic dna it wouldn't change my opinion of the BOM.

[Avatar4321]

I think it would probably help to have an idea what Lehi's DNA looked like. or what Laman & Lemuels DNA looked like after the change. Until we have that knowledge, it's impossible to use DNA to verify the Book of Mormon. I guess we just have to rely on the Holy Spirit.

[katherine the great]

I think it would probably help to have an idea what Lehi's DNA looked like. or what Laman & Lemuels DNA looked like after the change. Until we have that knowledge, it's impossible to use DNA to verify the Book of Mormon. I guess we just have to rely on the Holy Spirit.

   It looks like this!

[Avatar4321]

You know what i mean:-p

[Sevenbak]

The elephant in the room that is rarely addresses in any of these BoM DNA discussions is the curse brought on the Lamanites, which if we believe Moroni, is all that is left... no unaltered Nephite DNA.  Whatever genetic changes the Lord made, so that all subsequent seed had the same curse or change, is unknown.

[Stargazer]

I didn't read the article, but that bone could simply have come from a person who died in the Flood, and whose body was carried to the Americas by the waters.

 

Just finding a bone in a particular place doesn't mean the person lived there.

[Sevenbak]

I didn't read the article, but that bone could simply have come from a person who died in the Flood, and whose body was carried to the Americas by the waters.

 

Just finding a bone in a particular place doesn't mean the person lived there.

Don't you mean the other way around, since Noah left from what is now the Americas...

[Stargazer]

This topic seems to be already covered in General Discussions.

 

Which was first?

[blooit]

If archaeology can't prove the BOM false it also can't prove it true.

 

This is a claim I have always made as well.  On the other hand, I think it is possible to demonstrate academically that it is not simply a work of fiction - that it has historical roots.

 

I'm very familiar with the Book of Mormon timeline.  Like I said, this is just another small piece of an ever changing picture that undermines anti-mormon argument that "all DNA in the Americas is asian" or "DNA has proven the BOM false," etc.