It appears that the article writer jumped to conclusions about the Beringian migration theory being debunked with this new study.

http://www.manataka.org/page2811.html

But the paper's authors made no such claim. Thought?

Apologies for the typos, the site won't let me edit. Made me sound like a backwoods hick.

I can't see how this possibly debunks Bering Strait. It debunks Mormonism's waves of arrivals, and the diluted DNA fantasy.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/5/995.full


I can't find anything in the original research about the "land bridge idea [being] debunked," as is claimed in the linked article from the Manataka American Indian Council site.

As far a single ancestral population, here's a quote from the abstract of the original research:

"The results support the hypothesis that all modern Native Americans and Western Beringians trace A LARGE PORTION [not all] of their ancestry to a single founding population that may have been isolated from other Asian populations prior to expanding into the Americas." [Emphasis added]

And just so it's clear, this research came out seven years ago, so I imagine there is follow-up research and discussion about it in the scientific community for those who wish to explore more.

I'll let those who know more about this subject comment more in depth.

I appears that Manataka might be a fraud. It's a bullshit site.

Here is the headquarters: https://www.google.com/maps/uv?hl=en&pb=!1s0x87cd2ae24d0f89b5:0xb618ee86de9f140f!2m5!2m2!1i80!2i80!3m1!2i100!3m1!7e115!4s/maps/place/Manataka/@34.5000284,-93.0599992,3a,75y,181.4h,90t/data%3D*213m4*211e1*213m2*211sVduQseFVuKJ50W-8hcXdaQ*212e0*214m2*213m1*211s0x0:0xb618ee86de9f140f!5sManataka+-+Google+Search&imagekey=!1e2!2sVduQseFVuKJ50W-8hcXdaQ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzy5eD-trNAhWEMyYKHeDbCpUQpx8IiAEwEA

Here's what others are saying: http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=324.0

From what I am reading, Beringian migration was NOT debunked by the study. The study's authors are simply saying that the population that came over was largely cohesive and had likely been isolated in Asia.

IMO none of this is new. I was taught about the migration across the Bering land bridge back in elementary school in the 1960s. I was taught that one particular cohesive population came over the land bridge in high school in the 70s.

FYI, Simon only rarely posts here anymore. If I'm remembering correctly, he has moved on to explore other interests.

Simon popping in briefly. I agree with all the previous posts.

Its an article about a scientific research paper and is very loose with the truth. It is a well established fact that Native Americans entered the New World via Beringia in excess of 15,000 years ago. The evidence for this is compelling and comes from a range of scientific disciplines. The day these facts are overturned will be the day they find giants on the moon.

"It is a well established fact that Native Americans entered the New World via Beringia in excess of 15,000 years ago. The evidence for this is compelling and comes from a range of scientific disciplines."

When I was in the 5th or 6th grade circa 1966-67 (50 years ago, for those keeping score) my school science textbook related how America was first settled by Asians crossing the land bridge thousands of years ago. It told of the Ice Age ending and the glaciers melting, which allowed people to enter the Americas. The chapter included a painting of primitive men dressed in furskins stabbing at a mastodon with spears. I thought that was a pretty cool painting.

But then I'd go to Primary and Sunday School and hear how the Americas were settled by the Nephites in 600 B.C. I figured that the "uninspired" science textbook must be wrong, because the BOM had to be right. My mother bought us the four-volume set of books titled "A Child's Story of the Book of Mormon," which I see was still being published as late as 1987, and can still be purchased today. That's where I got my education about the "true" first settlement of America.

I'd go to Primary and listen to my wonderful, sweet teachers tell us those Book of Mormon stories, and encourage us to share the BOM with our non-Mormon friends. So once, when we had show-and-tell time at school, I brought a paperback BOM and told my fellow 6th-graders about the righteous Nephites and the wicked Lamanites, and how they sailed from Israel to America to become the continent's first inhabitants.

But as time has passed, with the advent of DNA research, we know that all of the known ancient Americans came from Asia, and none from the Middle East in the timeframe that the BOM claims they did. Nowadays, even the church admits that the "Book of Mormon people" weren't the first Americans.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/05/2016 05:28PM by randyj.

Which appeared in an online peer-reviewed encyclopedia.

And a note to Summer: Simon is simply busy; he's decided he can't be bothered with Rodney Meldrum's "Young Earth claims," but I'm still in regular touch with him and always welcome his fact-checking. Note the February 2016 date on this latest blog entry.

http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com

http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com/2014/02/ldsorg-essay-exposes-corporate.html

As far as the article cited, in its own way, these conclusions are as dishonest as any LDS apologists (individuals such as Brant Gardner, Greg Smith, Michael Ash, Rodney Meldrum, Jeff Lindsay, and of course Denial C. Peterson and his circle of dilletantes).

The Native Americans have a term for this sort of junk science; it's called $#!% talking...

These two "lead-ins" amount to sheer crap:

>Land bridge idea debunked...

>American Indians' DNA proves distinct race...

The claim citing the "Nine-repeat allele" simply points to the strong evidence that all Native Americans are closely related and other DNA evidence shows they are descended from Siberian population. That sequence demonstrates there was a long period of isolation, perhaps in Siberia, perhaps in Beregia, and only a single founding population--perhaps as few as a hundred or less individuals--gave rise to ancient Native Americans whose descendants eventually occupied both continents in this hemisphere.

Among most anthropologists with a molecular biology background, the concept of race has been discredited, and there exists an overabundance of evidence that Native Americans are still closely related to one group of Siberians from the Lake Baikal region.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/04/2016 09:25PM by SL Cabbie.

SL Cabbie Wrote:

> Among most anthropologists with a molecular
> biology background, the concept of race has been
> discredited, and there exists an overabundance of
> evidence that Native Americans are still closely
> related to one group of Siberians from the Lake
> Baikal region.

Can you point me in the direction of any peer reviewed journals, books, or articles that explains this? I know the research is there, but I have a difficult time finding the sources that explain this well. Thanks! ETA- the concept about race, just to clarify.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/04/2016 09:34PM by Itzpapalotl.

Jennifer Raff is one of my favorite molecular biologists, and her mentor, Deborah Bolnick, is one of those scientists--along with Brad Lepper who's authored several blogs on the subject as well--who were outraged at the misrepresentations of their positions offered in the video "The Lost Civilizations of North America."

That one was promoted by no less than Glenn Beck, and every time I post this I still chuckle over a reference Beck made to "John Wesley Howell."

And I'm already reaching for the Pepto bottle after a Google search referred to it as a "documentary."

https://violentmetaphors.com/2014/05/21/nicholas-wade-and-race-building-a-scientific-facade/

Oh, Cabbie, it's not a surprise that you gave him a honk. ;)

It's always good to see you here, Simon.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/04/2016 10:46PM by summer.

I had just finished my own post--it took considerable time--and I was about to send him a heads-up e-mail, but I saw there was no need...

I sent a halloo to Oz anyway, but I haven't heard back yet. He is busy...

BTW, Rodney Meldrum thinks Simon is stalking him, but it was just me doing some private research on some actual archaeology--the Newark Holy Stones fraud as I recall. Meldrum popped in, and that time I did give Dr. S. a heads-up. Meldrum was probably typing in soprano for a few days afterward.

I've got a project I'm working on that Meldrum isn't going to like; stay tuned... Loud laughter will be permitted.

I would love to know more about this subject, because it fascinates me. I'm hoping that you can steer me in the right direction.

In particular, I'm interested in the diversity of Native America DNA. On the one hand I've heard that Native American DNA isn't very diverse, others seem to say exact the opposite--that one small group migrated over Beringia and all differences are a result of genetic drift. How can I find out more about the specifics of genetic diversity among the native peoples of the America? Is Native South American DNA more diverse than the DNA of the Native peoples that occupied the area that is now the US?

Also, I've read that Australasian DNA has been found in some isolated tribes in Brazil. That same area also seems to carry a higher number of Denisovan alleles.

In addition, I wonder about the Seri people of the Sonoran desert. Their language is an isolate; is their DNA unique as well?

Lastly, I'm wondering if the amount of genetic diversity (or lack of it according to some) can eventually give a clearer picture of human history and settlement in the Americas. (It seems that the dates of earliest settlement reach back to at least 15,000+BP although some would argue that.)

So my question is: How do I find good resources to learn more about these issues? Any help would greatly appreciated. Thanks.

And in my view, that's a good thing. When one of my siblings graduated from a really prestigious university, the speaker was Gary Trudeau of "Doonesbury" fame. Mr. Trudeau endorsed the idea of students and others who "asked particularly 'impertinent' questions." I think what he was referring to was the tendency of many "faculty sorts" to dismiss such "distractions" out of hand.

Here goes my best effort (some of which is admittedly subjective):

As far as Native American mitochondrial DNA haplogroups, there are five known to exist in North America in pre-Columbian times. Those are A,B,C,D, and X... A haplogroup is simply an "arbitrary classification" based on common sequences of the base pairs of DNA, A,C,G,T, and since "large numbers" are involved, the science and mathematics are fairly precise. BTW, a sixth hg, Haplogroup M, was found in some ancient remains up north in the Yukon, but it has not been found in contemporary populations, giving rise to the speculation it may have "gone extinct." "M" is one of the oldest hg's and is found widely in Siberia and elsewhere in Asia. Its possible presence is this hemisphere isn't surprising.

http://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/blog/haplogroup-x2a-and-the-peopling-of-the-americas

Haplogroup X is another "old" one. We know the relative age by the number of mutations; they also point to the geographic distribution--within limits--as well. In the Western Hemisphere, X2a and X2g are found here and not in the Old World, and matters are still being sorted out. The other four hg's are found in Asia, and it's noteworthy they existed among the Altai people of Siberia.

When word got out that Eske Willerslev had sequenced the mtDNA of "Kennewick Man" (known to be ~9,000 years old), I sent Simon a little "what if" note, expressing a "hopeful fantasy" that KM's mtDNA would turn out to be X2a...

I'm still whistling over that one (and so was Simon. I was also in contact with Jennifer, the sharp little microbiologist mentioned in Andy White's blog above. Alas, she'd been privy to the information beforehand, but I did get to send the transoceanic news to Oz).

Okay, lessee: Your characterization of Native American DNA as "diverse" is a relative proposition. Extensive work and analysis has pointed to how the original five hg's were distributed (with "genetic drift" obviously being a factor), and what we know is that given those parameters and within those subsets, there is indeed diversity. But that diversity operates within the five known haplogroups.

Moving on: I saw the report of Australasian DNA in a South American population, but what I want to question are its origins since it was found on the Atlantic side of the continent (if memory serves). That being the case, the likely source would be some native Aussie aboriginals--or perhaps from New Guinea or other South Pacific locale--that were taken aboard, say a Portuguese, English, or Spanish vessel sometime after 1492.

It's not unreasonable to believe--as Simon does--that ancient Polynesians--perhaps from Easter Island--did make landfall somewhere on the Pacific coast, but we haven't found any genetic evidence to that effect.

I had to Google the "Seri People," and I see no reason to suspect that the remaining individuals in that tribe wouldn't be classified as "Indians," aka "Native Americans." But given what I've seen of the average IQ and critical thinking skills of some LDS apologists, I wouldn't be surprised if they'd seized upon those folks as a "talking point."

http://www.uapress.arizona.edu/onlinebks/SERIS/HISTORY.HTM

As far as that "15,000 year" date, you can place me squarely in the unrepentant "Clovis was probably first" camp, and I can point to senior individuals in the field--far more knowledgeable than I--who believe similarly. These include Vance Haynes, Anna C. Roosevelt, Dena Dincauze, Stuart Fiedel, and Gary Haynes (no relation to Vance Haynes).

On the other side of the debate--which often winds up fairly acrimonious--are Dennis Jenkins, Tom Dilehay (of Monte Verde fame/notoriety), Michael Waters, Thomas Stafford, James Adovasio (Meadowcroft) and "fringe sorts" such as Dennis Stanford (who's still promoting his "Solutrean Solution" even though it's past the point of even life support).

Have fun... I'm just a layman with an obvious "science interest and aptitude," but I was shrewd enough way back in my teens to recognize that the Book of Mormon was bunk. I even recognized how the language was "lifted" from the King James Bible, and I take some credit that I was following in none other than Mark Twain's "footsteps" in reaching that conclusion. My moniker's initials reflect that conclusion, although any "connection" I made was obviously strictly sub-conscious.

Thanks for taking the time and effort to reply,

Just to be clear..... I absolutely don't believe Meldrum or subscribe to any of his ridiculous ideas. I'm really just trying, as a layperson, to figure out reliable sources of information, versus crap.

I'm interested in history of the Americas, because it's a fascinating puzzle. For instance, as you said, we now have genetic evidence of Polynesians interacting with inhabitants of South America. I suspect that as time goes on, genetics will continue to give us a clearer picture of our past.

I'm familiar with the founding mtDNA of the Amerinds, Na-Dene, and Eskimo-Aluets, and also familiar with the differing arguments about how many waves of migration occurred. And as you stated, all American DNA originated in Asia, most probably from the Altai region. I think it's very probable that early migrants to the Americas had DNA that is no longer found in the Altai region (i.e. haplogoup X).

The idea about genetic diversity in the Americas comes from a few different places. For instance here's an article about diversity in Mexico:

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/06/115251/mexican-genetics-study-reveals-huge-variation-ancestry

Also, the tribes in the Amazon with Australian DNA were very primitive, isolated tribes. It's possible that it's an admixture, as you said, but it would a lot more interesting if it wasn't.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150721134827.htm

Lastly, the extinct aborigines from Tierra del Fuego, from the tip of South America, didn't have mtDNA that matched the mtDNA of the founding Amerindians. Do you know if this study has been refuted? Or is there more information that would shed light on this?

http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/6/1/41.full

Thanks for taking the time to put together a thoughtful, helpful reply. I'll continue to muddle my way through and obsess about anomalies that really don't impact my daily life--that's just part of my own genetic make-up :)

Thanks again!

At my age that's an occasional issue. We'll just have to see out this one sorts itself out; in the past there have been "exciting finds" (such as the Windover Bog mummies) that seemed to offer something new and spectacular and then fizzled into nothingness. I still think there's a high probabiity of post-Columbian admixture, despite the author's claims. It's a matter of geography (the same reason I reject the ancient seafarers in the BOM). How did the Austalasians get to the Amazon?

(I reject Von Däniken's "ancient spaceships" hypothesis)

As for the Oxford Journal piece, it's over 20 years old and I note that hg C and D are found, just not A and B (or X, which hasn't been found in South America anywhere at this point). Genetic drift would account for this; what that means is a small population--with few "A" or "B" individuals left a fair number of descendants. Overall, the picture of mtDNA distribution from north to south is generally consistent with the Berengia migration, with genetic variability decreasing as we move from north to south.

As for the "outlier," Here's what they said:

> Haplogroups A and B were not recognized in any of the samples typed and only one sample did not conform to any of the Amerindian mtDNA lineages.

(So what haplogroup was that sample?)

>The absence of Amerindian mtDNA patterns in a single sample might be attributable to present-day European-born contamination, although its sole occurrence among the whole set of samples makes the latter rather unlikely. In this respect, it is worth noting that residual lineages differing from the major Amerindian mtDNA clusters have recently been reported (8,14,16). The probability of European genetic admixture in the analyzed samples is remote, however, since no mixed crossings during the XIX century are documented for Fuego-Patagonia and all samples dated to the XIX century or earlier.

I'm not persuaded by that "no mixed crossings... documented" claim. There were a number of voyages around Cape Horn beginning with Magellan, and Sir Francis Drake made a similar voyage. What they're saying is there were no woman on board, of course, but... And I question that "its sole occurence makes [it]... unlikely." To my way of thinking, that makes contamination more likely.

Finally, I'm not aware of any "genetic evidence" of Polynesian/Native American contact (I seem to recall the "Polynesian chicken" story was controversial). The evidence Simon shared with me was that at some point Native Americans adopted some seafaring methods that were consistent with South Sea islanders. I don't find that difficult to believe.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2016 10:38AM by SL Cabbie.

Genetically, "racially" , socially and to some extent spiritually we are all mutts...

Gatorman