National Geographic: "great Surprise"—Native Americans Have West Eurasian Origins

[smac97]

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

Some key bits:

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.

Based on the arm bone of a 24,000-year-old Siberian youth, the research could uncover new origins for America's indigenous peoples, as well as stir up fresh debate on Native American identities, experts say.

The study authors believe the new study could also help resolve some long-standing puzzles on the peopling of the New World, which include genetic oddities and archaeological inconsistencies.

"These results were a great surprise to us," said study co-author and ancient-DNA specialist Eske Willerslev, of the University of Copenhagen, Denmark.

"I hadn't expected anything like this. A genome related to present-day western Eurasian populations and modern Native Americans as well was really puzzling in the beginning. How could this happen?"
So what's new?

The arm bone of a three-year-old boy from the Mal'ta site near the shores of Lake Baikal in south-central Siberia (map) yielded what may be the oldest genome of modern humans ever sequenced.

DNA from the remains revealed genes found today in western Eurasians in the Middle East and Europe, as well as other aspects unique to Native Americans, but no evidence of any relation to modern East Asians.

A second individual genome sequenced from material found at the site and dated to 17,000 years ago revealed a similar genetic structure
...

Why is it important?

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," Willerslev said.

"It's approximately one-third of the genome, and that is a lot," he added. "So in that regard I think it's changing quite a bit of the history."

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.

"The meeting of those two groups is what formed Native Americans as we know them."

Read the whole thing.

It will be interesting to see the spin on this from anti-mormons who have hung their hats on "settled" science pertaining to the origins of the populations of the Americas. The "science" appears to be rather complex and unsettled.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 7, 2014 by smac97

[The Nehor]

All those defenses I typed up.......so unnecessary. Curse you new information!!!!!

[bluebell]

That's really interesting.

[Okrahomer]

This is fascinating.  Thanks for the link!

[canard78]

Didn't this get discussed 6 months ago? Or is this new news about the 24,000 year old siberian youth's bone?

[frank_jessop]

It will be interesting to see the spin on this from anti-mormons who have hung their hats on "settled" science pertaining to the origins of the populations of the Americas. The "science" appears to be rather complex and unsettled.

Thanks,

-Smac

So a "great surprise" occurs, which caught even the researchers by surprise, and this proves that everything up to this point was "unsettled". Wouldn't it fairly accurate to state that until this "great surprise" the science of who and how of the first persons on the Americas was generally agreed upon?

And since you mention spin, it appears fellow Mormons are using the comment section to spin the article.

[frank_jessop]

Didn't this get discussed 6 months ago? Or is this new news about the 24,000 year old siberian youth's bone?

It is likely, the linked article is from Nov 13.

[Calm]

Didn't this get discussed 6 months ago? Or is this new news about the 24,000 year old siberian youth's bone?

The date looks like last November and iirc, the study is referred to in the Gospel Topic about DNA and the BoM.

[The Nehor]

Oh, next time I should read the article. My defenses still stand. All is well in the night.

[Stroopwafel]

Notwithstanding the 23 400 years discrepancy with regards to the BofM timeline (edit: in light of other posts, 20 000 years when accounting for Jaredites), what I find interesting in this article is that it is an example showing scientifics willing to adjust to new information when it is found relevant and credible. This tells me that if one day there really is something concrete discovered that substantiates the BofM, people will take it into account and reach the conclusions it leads to accordingly.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Stroopwafel

[omni]

I remember when this article first came out and seeing a number of Facebook posts linking to it as evidence for the BoM.  Apparently they read the headline, but not the first paragraph which mentioned the bones were 24,000 years old, about 20,000 years before the Jaredites.

Edited April 7, 2014 by omni

[Gray]

This is interesting, but it doesn't support BOM historicity. 

[barbarbar]

It will be interesting to see the spin on this from anti-mormons who have hung their hats on "settled" science pertaining to the origins of the populations of the Americas. The "science" appears to be rather complex and unsettled.

Thanks,

-Smac

You're joking right? It will be even more interesting to see how you address the dates in the article, as they contradict both the Book of Mormon timeline an the timeline of man's existence in the bible.

[teddyaware]

You're joking right? It will be even more interesting to see how you address the dates in the article, as they contradict both the Book of Mormon timeline an the timeline of man's existence in the bible.

Given the content and basic point of smac97's post, your comment seems to indicate you totally missed his point. Smac97's point is it was previously considered "settled science" that all Native Americans, past and present, were and are descendants of paleo East Asians who crossed the trans Siberia/Alaska land bridge. Prior to the recent announcement by National Geographic concerning some Native American's having Middle Eastern DNA, any who dared to state anything contrary the "settled science" that Native Americans had only East Asian ancestry would be mocked, scorned and ridiculed as an unsophisticated clowns. For now, present carbon dating methods and analysis are also considered "settled science," but how much do you wanna bet that the so-called "settled science" of present-day carbon dating is also eventually going to have to be reconsidered, revamped and recalibrated based on as yet undiscovered variables?

Edited April 7, 2014 by teddyaware

[barbarbar]

Given the content and basic point of smac97's post, your comment seems to indicate you totally missed his point. Smac97's point is it was previously considered "settled science" that all Native Americans, past and present, were and are descendants of paleo East Asians who crossed the trans Siberia/Alaska land bridge. Prior to the recent announcement by National Geographic concerning some Native American's having Middle Eastern DNA, any who dared to state anything contrary the "settled science" that Native Americans had only East Asian ancestry would be mocked, scorned and ridiculed as an unsophisticated clowns. For now, present carbon dating methods and analysis are also considered "settled science," but how much do you wanna bet that the so-called "settled science" of present-day carbon dating is also eventually going to have to be reconsidered, revamped and recalibrated based on as yet undiscovered variables?

You're right. I re-read his statements. My apologies.

[thesometimesaint]

Given the content and basic point of smac97's post, your comment seems to indicate you totally missed his point. Smac97's point is it was previously considered "settled science" that all Native Americans, past and present, were and are descendants of paleo East Asians who crossed the trans Siberia/Alaska land bridge. Prior to the recent announcement by National Geographic concerning some Native American's having Middle Eastern DNA, any who dared to state anything contrary the "settled science" that Native Americans had only East Asian ancestry would be mocked, scorned and ridiculed as an unsophisticated clowns. For now, present carbon dating methods and analysis are also considered "settled science," but how much do you wanna bet that the so-called "settled science" of present-day carbon dating is also eventually going to have to be reconsidered, revamped and recalibrated based on as yet undiscovered variables?

 

 

While always possible, don't hold you breath.

[teddyaware]

While always possible, don't hold you breath.

With God all things are possible -- including the overturning of "settled science."

[thesometimesaint]

With God all things are possible -- including the overturning of "settled science."

 

Don't hold your breath.

[katherine the great]

There is no doubt in my mind that most (and probably all) Native Americans are descendants of East Asians.  We see it in their genetic profiles.  This find indicates that those founding East Asian's ancestors had (over time) married descendants of people with West Asian DNA who were living in East Asia.  It will be interesting in the future to see if any any evidence of haplogroup x is found in this area.  I also know of a person who's genealogy records positively link him directly to a maternal Cherokee ancestress but his mt DNA showed a U hapolotype.  We assumed that there must have been a European woman (marriage or adoption) somewhere in that line, but this study kind of makes me go "hmmmmmmm...."