And it wasn’t Hebrew. Instead of multiple waves of immigration, there was only one wave. That eliminates the possibility of Nephites in the Americas:
The study strengthens the premise of the Book of Mormon, that the American continents were a “choice land” and were not overrun by many populations. DNA studies rely on the maternal ancestor. Since both Joseph (son of Jacob) and Manasseh (son of Joseph) had wives who were non-Hebrews, it is fully to be expected that the descendants of the Lamanites (the Nephites having been totally decimated according to the Book of Mormon) would have non-Hebraic DNA markers.
The study did not include many data points in northern or north-eastern Russia, where there were many distinct tribal groups, some of whom may turn out to be related to the DNA markers found in the ancient American population.
The Book of Mormon does not indicate whether Lehi’s wife, Sariah, or Ishmael’s wife (unnamed), or the wives of the Mulekite group (unnamed) were or were not Hebrews. Based on the pattern with Joseph and Masasseh, it could be fully expected that they were not Hebraic.
The study also does not show data points from population groups living on the Polynesian islands or any islands of the sea. A sampling from these areas is significantly absent, and weakens the study as to conclusions which can be drawn.
Where did you get your information on the study itself? The link posted did not say what you claim at all.
He probably didn’t read it. This is the Mormon stock answer for any DNA issues. It’s preposterous on its face.
@ParkerD: You don’t give up, do you? Too amusing.
Clear indication you didn’t actually read the article. Because, hrm… as I look at the map, WHOA! There are some data points from Northern AND North Eastern Russia.
Secondly, the article clearly states that this is the ONLY DNA strand found in both men AND women. So, your book trying to use science to show that nephites traveled to the Americas through the DNA evidence in women is, well, false. Read the article. It explains the difference between the DNA this study finds and the mitochondrial DNA that is passed down through women.
koff It actually disproves “nephites.” Sorry to inform you.
No, it doesn’t. Polynesia is too far from the Americas to merit any notice. Migration would have been difficult, to say the least. Most likely people immigrated TO Polynesia than FROM Polynesia.
@Catholic20064 Thank you for posting this. I’m going to see if I can get this journal to read the study.
I am American, but have Spanish and Mexican blood in me. My father being from Guadalajara and with much Spanish influence on my mom’s side. I’ve had this recent interest in who my peoples are. Long story, I won’t go into it. LOL.
I’ve also passed this article on to an ethnographer friend of mine who loves Central and South America and is very interested in their cultures. She is who helped grow an interest in my ancestors within me.
the previous DNA studies cited, including this one, have looked at both transmission through the X and Y (mother to daughter and father to son) contrary to OP’s claim. This stody and some previous study did test Oceanic and norther European and north Asian strains, contrary to OP’s claim. the entire study report can be obtained on-line which refutes OP’s principal assertions about it. the DNA strain found is not simply “non-Hebraic” as are many others, it is distinct to this specific group and not found in any of the populations, other than an isolated north Asian group, .
Does the Book of Mormon specify when the lost tribe came to America?
EDIT: Nevermind, Wiki states the migration according to Mormonism occured between 2700 BC through 420 AD. The general consesus seems to be that the migration occured between 10,000-40,000 years ago.
I’m not sure what you mean. I of course read the study before commenting on it. Of course the study didn’t talk about the Book of Mormon or the marriages of Joseph, Mannasseh, and Lehi. If you thought I was implying that the study talked about those marriages, then you misunderstood my comment.
Please note also that “more than one out of three had the variant” does not mean the same thing as “100% had the variant.”
The study can be printed. I have a copy which I have printed. I also have a world map which I have consulted and compared with some of the data points in the study. Easily done!
So where, in your mind, did these people come from? And where did the people they came from come from?
Your edit is correct. What I had asked before, and still would like to know, is why in the world anyone would think that a group of people crossed over from Beringia over 10,000 years ago (which I don’t agree with time-wise) and then no groups ever crossed back to the other side, yet the group that crossed over migrated all over the Americas? As far as I’m concerned, the conclusion is implausible.
Again, there were not enough data points in northern Russia nor in the islands to make the broad conclusions the study tries to make.
Have a good day, all.
Note again that the “isolated north Asian group” was one data point (33), yet point 29 is the only other northern Russia data point. Several tribal groups in northern Russia were isolated based on reading I’ve done. Why in the world the UCDavis study didn’t look at more population groups all over northern Russia, I simply don’t understand.
My point about Sariah and the other wives is that the DNA of their descendants would be distinctive from the DNA of the Hebrews in and around Jerusalem or those taken captive and into parts north of Jerusalem. One cannot expect any direct comparative relationship between the DNA of descendants of Lehi and DNA of modern Hebrews. That was my point.
No, my question is where did you get the information on the Study. What you posted was not the same as what was printed. I know where you got your Mormon info.
I take it you found the actual study and printed it. Can you provide a link to that?
I don’t have anything in my mind about it, I am merely pointing out that the poster who responded to OP missed some points in the published study and mis-stated them, therefore his conclusions are faulty. Personally I could not care less where they came from. There is one human race on this planet, created by God in His image, and their history is fascinating study. my information on the study was gained in the usual way by reading first the summary, then following links to the complete report.
Really? Fascinating! From where did you get the study?
I find this quite interesting because I went to the website for the journal of “Molecular Biology and Evolution,” where the actual study is printed, from which the linked article in the original post takes its information, and when I click on either the “Full Text” for “PDF” link I am directed to a page that says I am required to have a subscription to the journal.
I take it, then, that you have a subscription to this journal? Or did a quick and single “Pay per view” for it? I am considering that option myself as I really have no need for an actual subscription.
Yes, so do I and it’s called Google maps. Quicker, more in depth search function. Further, the linked article in the original post has a smaller map for quick reference.
You DO realize that the link in the original post of this thread is but a mere summary of the actual study, right?
I find it highly amusing that you don’t think this study is good enough for you, but it IS good enough to be published in a scientific journal revered by other molecular scientists.
I think I’ll take the word of scientists who have studied this over yours.
Here is the link to the abstract of the study itself:
I mis-stated that I had printed the actual study itself. I printed the abstract and also the UCDavis article that summarized the study and showed the map of the data points.
Have a good day.
“Personally I could not care less where they came from.”
“their history is fascinating study.”
Thanks. I am with you now.
Question for all: what does this study actually show us?
Thanks for your final question above. For others reading who haven’t followed the links, here is a summary statement from the abstract:
“Using a new method for estimating the time to the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all sampled copies of an allele on the basis of an estimate of the length of the genealogy descended from the MRCA, we calculate the mean time to the MRCA of the 9-repeat allele to be between 7,325 and 39,900 years, depending on the demographic model used. The results support the hypothesis that all modern Native Americans and Western Beringians trace a large portion of their ancestry to a single founding population that may have been isolated from other Asian populations prior to expanding into the Americas.”
Correct. Further, this study rules out the possiblity of it being random or a result of natural selection that they have this common marker.
Now, what does that mean?