DNA

  • Hap­logroup X a Mid­dle East and Euro­pean DNA mark­er found in North America
  • Hap­logroup X in DNA dis­tri­b­u­tion match­es Hopewell and Book of Mor­mon migra­tion, expanse and trade system
  • Leg­end of Fu Sang Chi­nese knowl­edge of the North Amer­i­can continent

Hap­logroups A, B, C, D, and X are found among the Indi­ans of the Amer­i­can con­ti­nents. Hap­logroups A, B, C, and D can be explained as com­ing from Asia, but not hap­logroup X, which is only found in North Amer­i­can Indi­ans. Oth­er North, Cen­tral, and South Amer­i­can Indi­ans show the Hap­logroups A, B, C, and D. Hap­logroup X is not found in Asia, it is found in Israel, Europe and North Amer­i­ca specif­i­cal­ly the Great lakes region by New York State.
http://​www​.eupe​dia​.com/​e​u​r​o​p​e​/​H​a​p​l​o​g​r​o​u​p​_​X​_​m​t​D​N​A​.shtml
https://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​H​a​p​l​o​g​r​o​u​p​_​X​_​(mtDNA)

Sci­en­tists believe that hap­logroup X crossed the Bering Ice Bridge some­time around 12000 and 30000 years ago. That belief is prob­lem­at­ic because there is no DNA evi­dence trail that hap­logroup X crossed the Bering land bridge. Apply­ing the same rea­son­ing that crit­ics use to con­clude that DNA dis­proves the Book of Mor­mon in Mesoamer­i­ca, you would also con­clude that hap­logroup X did not cross the Bering land bridge. There is no Native Amer­i­can hap­logroup X DNA found in Siberia, East Asia, or the west coast of Amer­i­ca, and it is com­plete­ly absent in Cen­tral and South Amer­i­ca. When look­ing at the hap­logroup X DNA dis­tri­b­u­tion map notice that it is not found in East Asia but in Europe and the Mid­dle East. There is a small group of hap­logroup X found in the Alta­ians of south Siberia but this sub­group of hap­logroup X is not relat­ed to North Amer­i­can Indi­ans and their arrival in the Alta­ians is after the Bering Ice Bridge would not have been crossable.

Third, the few Alta­ian (Derenko et al. 2001) and Siber­ian hap­logroup X lin­eages are not relat­ed to the Native Amer­i­can clus­ter, and they are more like­ly explained by recent gene flow from Europe or from West Asia”
Ori­gin and Dif­fu­sion of mtD­NA Hap­logroup X
Haplogroup_X_(mtDNA)

What also makes hap­logroup X inter­est­ing is that it is a Euro­pean. Cau­casian DNA mark­er. The Cau­casian part is impor­tant to keep that in mind as you read the quotes about Native Amer­i­can tra­di­tions and stories.

Hap­logroup X is remark­able in that it has not been found in Asians, includ­ing Siberians”

In that case, as it has been pro­posed, hap­logroup X was brought to Amer­i­ca by the east­ward migra­tion of an ances­tral white pop­u­la­tion, of which no trace has so far been found in the mtD­NA gene pool of mod­ern Siberian/eastern Asian pop­u­la­tion” (The Pres­ence of Mito­chon­dr­i­al Hap­logroup X in Alta­ians from South Siberia Am. J. Hum. Genet. 69:237–241, 2001)

To date, hap­logroup X has not been unam­bigu­ous­ly iden­ti­fied in Asia, rais­ing the pos­si­bil­i­ty that some Native Amer­i­can founders were of Cau­casian ancestry.”

http://​www​.sci​encedi​rect​.com/​s​c​i​e​n​c​e​/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​/​p​i​i​/​S​0​0​0​2​9​2​9​7​0​7​616292

Over­all, the sequence data and phy­lo­ge­net­ic analy­sis sug­gest that the Native Amer­i­can and the Euro­pean hap­logroup X mtD­NAs share a com­mon mater­nal ancestor”

The 14 Cau­casian-Euro­pean hap­logroup X sam­ples (des­ig­nat­ed “CE1”–“CE14”) includ­ed 2 Cau­casians of Euro­pean ances­try” (MtD­NA hap­logroup X: An Ancient Link between Europe/Western Asia and North Amer­i­ca Michael D. Brown,1 Seyed H. Hosseini,1 Anto­nio Torroni,2 Hans-Ju¨rgenBandelt,3 Jon C. Allen,1 Theodore G. Schurr,1 Rosaria Scozzari,2 Ful­vio Cruciani,2 and Dou­glas C. Wallace1)

Phy­lo­ge­net­ic analy­sis and coa­les­cence esti­mates for Amer­i­can Indi­an and Euro­pean hap­logroup X mtD­NAs exclude the pos­si­bil­i­ty that the occur­rence of hap­logroup X in Amer­i­can Indi­ans is due to recent Euro­pean admix­ture.” (The Pres­ence of Mito­chon­dr­i­al hap­logroup X in Alta­ians from South Siberia Am. J. Hum. Genet. 69:237–241, 2001)

Near­ly one-third of Native Amer­i­can genes come from west Eurasian peo­ples with ties to the Mid­dle East and Europe (“Great Surprise”—Native Amer­i­cans Have West Eurasian Ori­gins http://​news​.nation​al​geo​graph​ic​.com/​n​e​w​s​/​2​0​1​3​/​1​1​/​1​3​1​1​2​0​-​s​c​i​e​n​c​e​-​n​a​t​i​v​e​-​a​m​e​r​i​c​a​n​-​p​e​o​p​l​e​-​m​i​g​r​a​t​i​o​n​-​s​i​b​e​r​i​a​-​g​e​n​etics/)

Anoth­er prob­lem with the Bering Ice bridge the­o­ry is that Poly­ne­sian DNA is found in South Amer­i­ca. The idea that Poly­ne­sians migrat­ed across the Bering Ice Bridge is ridiculous.

Researchers mapped sim­i­lar­i­ties in genes, muta­tions and ran­dom pieces of DNA of Cen­tral and South Amer­i­can tribes with oth­er groups. Warmer col­ors indi­cate the strongest affinities.”
(Pon­tus Skoglund, Har­vard Med­ical School). 

From the map below notice the lack of Asian pock­ets of DNA that cor­re­spond to South Amer­i­ca in Siberia and East Asia. But the larg­er con­cen­tra­tions found in the trop­i­cal and warmer cli­mates of South Asia. Why would any group of peo­ple migrate to the arc­tic sub­ze­ro tem­per­a­tures of Siberia and North East Asia from trop­i­cal and tem­per­ate cli­mates? Com­par­a­tive­ly very few peo­ple live in these arc­tic cli­mates the rea­son why these loca­tions are inhos­pitable to human life. There are large con­cen­tra­tions of the men­tioned DNA found in South Amer­i­can but notice the par­tic­u­lar DNA sam­ples being shown as evi­dence is not found in what is now Amer­i­ca and only one loca­tion in Cana­da. This evi­dence would sug­gest transocean­ic voy­ages to South Amer­i­ca. Below are quotes from arti­cles and research papers ques­tion­ing the Bering Ice bridge theory:

Native American Ancestry Map

The pre­vail­ing the­o­ry is that the first Amer­i­cans arrived in a sin­gle wave, and all Native Amer­i­can pop­u­la­tions today descend from this one group of adven­tur­ous founders. But now there’s a kink in that theory.”

If Aleut­ian Islanders or their ances­tors had some­how mixed with an Aus­tralasian group up north or made their way south to the Ama­zon, they’d leave genet­ic clues along the way. “It’s not a clear alter­na­tive,” argues Reich.”

Three Ama­zon­ian groups—Suruí, Kari­tiana and Xavante—all had more in com­mon with Aus­tralasians than any group in Siberia.”

Both stud­ies there­fore sug­gest that the ances­try of the first Amer­i­cans is a lot more com­pli­cat­ed than sci­en­tists had envisioned.”

There is a greater diver­si­ty of Native Amer­i­can found­ing pop­u­la­tions than pre­vi­ous­ly thought,” says Skoglund. “And these found­ing pop­u­la­tions con­nect indige­nous groups in far apart places of the world.”

http://​www​.smith​so​ni​an​mag​.com/​s​c​i​e​n​c​e​-​n​a​t​u​r​e​/​D​N​A​-​s​e​a​r​c​h​-​f​i​r​s​t​-​a​m​e​r​i​c​a​n​s​-​l​i​n​k​s​-​a​m​a​z​o​n​-​i​n​d​i​g​e​n​o​u​s​-​a​u​s​t​r​a​l​i​a​n​s​-​1​8​0​9​5​5​9​7​6​/​?​no-ist

Anoth­er valu­able point in show­ing incon­sis­ten­cies of the Bering land bridge the­o­ry is the Clovis/fluted spear point from Europe. This type of stone pro­jec­tile is believed to have been brought from the Euro­pean con­ti­nent to North Amer­i­ca via Bear­ing Ice Bridge. This spear point is found in Europe and North Amer­i­ca but not found in Siberia or East Asia. How was this spear point brought to North Amer­i­ca across the Bear­ing land bridge if it’s not found in Siberia and East Asia? Clo­vis spear points are found in plen­ti­ful sup­ply east of the Rocky Moun­tains but in such areas as Alas­ka and the Aleu­tians where there should also be evi­dence show­ing this sup­posed cross­ing there are a few spots in Alas­ka most like­ly brought from move­ment from the east coast. But noth­ing in the way of evi­dence show­ing a land migra­tion in Alas­ka or the Aleu­tians or East Asia or Siberia.

image015.jpg image016.jpg

I believe it can be shown that hap­logroup X and or the Jared­ites are inex­orably linked to this type of stone pro­jec­tile. The Clo­vis peo­ple are believed to have caused the extinc­tion of at least 25 gen­era of indige­nous land mam­mals found in North Amer­i­ca. To include hors­es, cat­tle, goats, and mam­moths (ele­phants) all ani­mals list­ed in the Book of Mor­mon. If the Jared­ites brought over the Clo­vis spear point which I believe they did the Nephites and Laman­ites even­tu­al­ly adopt­ed this type of spear point. Major stum­bling blocks to the his­toric­i­ty of the Book of Mor­mon can be shown to be false. I can only assume based on the evi­dence the cur­rent dat­ing of the Clo­vis peo­ple is wrong and the Clo­vis point was used and arrived with the Jared­ites. The cur­rent the­o­ry that this point arrived via the Bering land bridge with­out evi­dence proves this the­o­ry is in need of reex­am­i­na­tion. That can be said of world migra­tions to the Amer­i­can con­ti­nent also. The Clo­vis spear point map in my opin­ion is also indica­tive of the bat­tles between Nephites and Laman­ites fought in North America.

Orig­i­nal­ly the Bering Ice Bridge states that there was a sin­gle migra­tion as far back as 30000 years ago. But pop­u­la­tion expan­sion of North Amer­i­ca and diverse cul­ture and lin­guis­tics pop­u­la­tions found in North and South Amer­i­ca prove against this. Now the­o­rist are explor­ing the idea of two and maybe more migra­tions. I believe this is just the begin­ning of more the­o­ries to come. If atten­tion can be turned to holes found in the Bering Ice Bridge the­o­ry I believe the­o­ries that include trans-ocean­ic voy­ages from Asia to the Amer­i­can con­ti­nent will be unavoidable.

Sci­en­tists have used Anzick‑1 to show a genet­ic link between Siberia and North Amer­i­ca, but there are a cou­ple prob­lems with this hypoth­e­sis. Anzwic‑1 is hap­logroup D not X. It does not explain how hap­logroup X arrived in North Amer­i­ca. Based on genet­ic dis­tri­b­u­tion hap­logroup X and D, hap­logroup X is more close­ly asso­ci­at­ed to the large con­cen­tra­tion of Clo­vis and flut­ed points found on the east coast of Amer­i­ca of which hap­logroup D is almost com­plete­ly absent from. Also, what would appear to be the found­ing pop­u­la­tions based on the high con­cen­tra­tions of hap­logroup D is found in cen­tral and South Amer­i­ca – it’s not found on the west coast of North Amer­i­ca or in Alas­ka. The phys­i­cal evi­dence leads me to believe that hap­logroup D arrived by trans-ocean­ic voy­ages to Cen­tral and South America.

When Colum­bus reached the Amer­i­c­as in 1492, Native Amer­i­can occu­pa­tion stretched from the Bering Strait to Tier­ra del Fuego, Tor­roni explained. Those native pop­u­la­tions encom­passed extra­or­di­nary lin­guis­tic and cul­tur­al diver­si­ty, which has fueled exten­sive debate among experts over their inter­re­la­tion­ships and ori­gins. “ (First Amer­i­cans arrived as 2 sep­a­rate migra­tions, accord­ing to new genet­ic evidence)

The DNA and Clo­vis spear points not found in Siberia and East Asia brings the bear­ing Ice bridge the­o­ry to a halt. But there is also a large amount of evi­dence dis­prov­ing the time­line of a 15000BC to 30000BC time­line. The evi­dence will show there are cer­tain North Amer­i­can Indi­an tribes that have Hebrew beliefs, lin­guis­tics, arti­facts, tech­nol­o­gy and cul­ture that date to bib­li­cal times and not to 15000BC which would pre­date these tech­nolo­gies and beliefs. A great exam­ple are the Hopewell and Ade­na Indi­ans these cul­tures had an advanced met­al­lur­gy to include cop­per breast­plates, cop­per and sil­ver Jew­el­ry, mete­oric iron tools and weapons. The Hopewell and Ade­na had woven cloth and but­tons. The Hopewell had an advanced trade sys­tem that stretched for thou­sands of miles with a high­way sys­tem. It’s also worth not­ing that civ­i­liza­tions that had met­al­lur­gy, woven cloth and advanced trade sys­tem also had a writ­ten lan­guage. The old­est Hopewell arche­o­log­i­cal site is found in Flori­da at 500BC these Indi­ans dis­ap­peared around 400 AD in the Great Lakes region. These tech­nolo­gies, cul­tur­al and lin­guis­tic ties show that hap­logroup X arrived dur­ing bib­li­cal times by ship and not 12000BC to 30000BC through an arc­tic land migration.

The Hopewell Indi­ans have hap­logroup X DNA. The Ade­na cul­ture end also match­es the Book of Mor­mon. The Hopewell time­line geog­ra­phy and tech­nol­o­gy match­es the Book of Mor­mon per­fect­ly and makes them the per­fect civ­i­liza­tion to be the Nephites.

Hap­logroup X DNA dis­tri­b­u­tion is found on the east coast of Amer­i­ca with the high­est con­cen­tra­tion found in the Great Lakes and Cana­da region. It’s not found in South and Cen­tral Amer­i­ca and very lit­tle on the west coast of Amer­i­ca. Gen­er­al world migra­tion the­o­ry is that pop­u­la­tions would fol­low the coast line we do not see this with hap­logroup X. Sci­en­tist have point out dat­ing of hap­logroup X entry has been uncer­tain. Stud­ies have shown pop­u­la­tion expan­sion of hap­logroup X as stat­ed by sci­en­tist hap­pened dur­ing bib­li­cal times. One would assume that if hap­logroup X arrived as late as 12000BC pop­u­la­tion expan­sion would have hap­pened much ear­li­er than what the cur­rent the evi­dence shows. Some sci­en­tist have the­o­rized that hap­logroup X crossed 3000 miles over ice from Europe to Amer­i­ca across the Atlantic Ocean dur­ing the last ice. This the­o­ry is called the Solutre­an the­o­ry and hap­logroup X dis­tri­b­u­tion and Clo­vis spear points are used as evi­dence. The the­o­ry that groups of peo­ple crossed over 3000 miles of frozen Atlantic Ocean ice is hard to swal­low for the vast major­i­ty of sci­en­tist and this the­o­ry is not accept­ed. Any dat­ing of hap­logroup X by car­bon dat­ing past 6000 BC I believe is incor­rect because of the evi­dence that will be pro­vid­ed and the envi­ron­men­tal, uncer­tain atmos­pher­ic con­di­tions of mil­len­ni­al dates, and vari­able inputs need­ed for car­bon dat­ing and bias­es of researchers.

The point of this is that the­o­ries of the pop­u­lat­ing of the Amer­i­can con­ti­nent is fraught with holes. I believe DNA, cul­tur­al, and lin­guis­tic evi­dence will show that the Amer­i­can con­ti­nent was pop­u­lat­ed through trans-ocean­ic voy­ages by ships ver­sus land migra­tions in artic tem­per­a­tures across bar­ren ice. A view of geo­graph­i­cal loca­tions of South Amer­i­can DNA found in Asia has many loca­tions in South Asia with fair­ly close prox­im­i­ty to the ocean sug­gest­ing ocean these voy­ages. The Book of Mor­mon states that there were three trans-ocean­ic migra­tions by ship, Lehi’s fam­i­ly, the Mulekites and the Jared­ites. Poly­ne­sian DNA the leg­end of Fu sand and the Book of Mor­mon is all evi­dence that the Pop­u­lat­ing of North Amer­i­can was done by ship and not on artic land masses.

The tim­ing of ini­tial entry into the Amer­i­c­as is uncer­tain. Through use of esti­mates of mtD­NA diver­si­ty and rates of mtD­NA evo­lu­tion, a broad range of dates (11,000–43,000 years BP) have been esti­mat­ed (Tor­roni et al. 1994; Bon­at­to and Salzano 1997a; Lorenz and Smith 1997; Stone and Stonek­ing 1998). Although researchers have rec­og­nized the need to incor­po­rate pop­u­la­tion his­to­ry in their esti­mates, the wide range of dates report­ed in the lit­er­a­ture for the peo­pling of the Amer­i­c­as sug­gests that accu­rate mod­els of Native Amer­i­can pop­u­la­tion his­to­ry, accu­rate mod­els of the evo­lu­tion of mtD­NA, and suf­fi­cient sam­pling of pop­u­la­tions in the Amer­i­c­as have not yet emerged.”

http://​www​.ncbi​.nlm​.nih​.gov/​p​m​c​/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​s​/​P​M​C​3​79119/

As will be shown in the essay North Amer­i­can Indi­ans have beliefs that match the Book of Mor­mon per­fect­ly. To include that Chero­kee and Iro­quois killed off a white race of Indi­an, cer­tain Indi­an tribes sailed to North Amer­i­ca and beliefs of writ­ten char­ac­ters and let­ters. They had a lost gospel tak­en away from them, beliefs of a flood and Christ-like appear­ance. They also have Hebrew like lan­guage and cul­ture and tem­ple prac­tices. Based on their own beliefs and tra­di­tions the Chero­kee and Iro­quois make up the pri­ma­ry tribes to be the Laman­ites. The Mic­mac Indi­ans based on the writ­ings of Father Chret­ian Le Cler­cq are most like­ly to have been direct descen­dants of the Nephites.

Below I have added some quotes about Indi­an beliefs, cul­ture and lan­guage. The quotes and evi­dence pro­vid­ed is a small sam­pling and just begins to scratch the sur­face out of the many books that have been writ­ten about the Amer­i­can Indi­ans. To make the state­ment that there is no DNA, arche­o­log­i­cal, cul­tur­al and lin­guis­tic evi­dence to sup­port the Book of Mor­mon is com­plete­ly false the oppo­site is true. The quotes below come from today’s anthro­pol­o­gist. And the 19th 18th 17th cen­tu­ry books are used by his­to­ri­ans to write the his­to­ry of the North Amer­i­can Indi­ans. Some peo­ple might find using these sources as trou­ble­some. But when it comes to explor­ing the beliefs cul­ture and tra­di­tions of the Amer­i­can Indi­ans the old­er the source the bet­ter due to the sys­tem­at­ic destruc­tion of the Native Amer­i­can way of life in the 18th, 19th and 20th cen­tu­ry. One will also notice that state­ments made will be sup­port­ed by mul­ti­ple sources some from dif­fer­ent coun­tries and time spans.

Haplogroup X Distribution

Hap­logroup X dis­tri­b­u­tion match­es the his­tor­i­cal record giv­en in the Book of Mor­mon and Bible. Accord­ing to the Heart­land Mod­el Lehi and his fam­i­ly land­ed some­where between the Flori­da Pan­han­dle and Mis­sis­sip­pi. Nephi and his fam­i­ly imme­di­ate­ly sep­a­rat­ed from Laman and went into the wilder­ness. The Seed of Nephi would most like­ly be the Cau­casian DNA mark­er of hap­logroup X and Laman’s seed would have mixed with the Asian eth­nic tribes of that area and era. In the Book of Mor­mon it states that the Nephites con­stant­ly had to move North because their tra­di­tion­al lands south were being over tak­en by the Laman­ites. The Nephites also had an exten­sive trade sys­tem that includ­ed the use of hors­es and char­i­ots. We can see from the map that hap­logroup X reached to and beyond the Rocky Moun­tains. That match­es the state­ments that Joseph Smith made about Zelph that he was known from the Rocky Moun­tains to the east­ern see (Lake Ontario). If the Hopewell Indi­ans are the Nephites we know that the exten­sive trade sys­tem of the Hopewell’s reached to the Rocky Moun­tains to Lake Ontario and beyond as shown in the hap­logroup X map. Hagoth sailed across the West Sea with over 5000 men women and chil­dren and he made this voy­age twice. The west sea is most like­ly Lake Michi­gan. Hagoth would have pop­u­lat­ed what is now Cana­da. Hagoth’s seed for the most part could have avoid­ed the Nephite geno­cide which hap­pened in the Great Lakes area and would account for the largest con­cen­tra­tion of hap­logroup X in Cana­da. I know that prophets and apos­tles made state­ments that Hagoth sailed to the Poly­ne­sian Islands. I believe this to be incor­rect. I believe they made these state­ments based on opin­ion and the knowl­edge and accept­ed the­o­ries of that day. Prophets and apos­tles opin­ions have been wrong before about incon­se­quen­tial and con­tro­ver­sial top­ics such as the idea that blacks would nev­er receive the Priest­hood and that men lived on the moon.

Haplogroup_X_(mtDNA)

As far as the Europe and Mid­dle East dis­tri­b­u­tion goes we know that Man­asseh and his seed were in Egypt, Per­sia, and then went north to what is believed by tra­di­tion­al accounts of the Lost Ten Tribes mov­ing north. Each geo­graph­i­cal loca­tion men­tioned in the Bible and Book of Mor­mon is account­ed for from the orig­i­na­tion point of hap­logroup X and its move north into Europe. One research paper has point­ed out that the Galilee Druze of Israel have the most diver­si­ty and the high­est con­cen­tra­tion of Hap­logroup X found on the Euro­pean and Eurasian continent.

These Galilee Druze indi­vid­u­als rep­re­sent the refugium of an ances­tral group with high diver­si­ty and high fre­quen­cy of hap­logroup X, which was more preva­lent in the region in antiq­ui­ty, and from which the glob­al diver­si­ty of X mtD­NA hap­logroup emerged.

We found that 39 of 41 hap­logroup X Druze indi­vid­u­als were from the Galilee heights (Table S2), cor­re­spond­ing to 21.4% (39÷182) of the sam­ples from that region. Enrich­ment analy­sis revealed that both X1 and X2 were high­ly enriched in this region”

The high­est con­cen­tra­tions in the world of hap­logroup X is found in the Israeli Galilee Druze at 27%. The North Amer­i­can Indi­ans specif­i­cal­ly the Ojib­wa have the sec­ond high­est con­cen­tra­tion of hap­lo group x in the world. Hap­logroup X is found in Europe in sin­gle dig­its. This match to the Bible and Book of Mor­mon is quite remark­able. If hap­logroup X trav­eled with hap­logroup A, B, C and D across Asia to North Amer­i­ca, why do Ojib­wa have the sec­ond high­est con­cen­tra­tion? It’s remark­able that a tribe in North Amer­i­ca has almost the same con­cen­tra­tion of hap­logroup X in Israelis. This rep­re­sents to me a recent and dis­tinct voy­age to the new world prob­a­bly around 600BC. I believe it also shows that the Ojib­wa in par­tic­u­lar did not inter­mar­ry or pop­u­late with the oth­er hap­logroups already in the Amer­i­c­as. Hap­logroup X is dis­tinct from oth­er hap­logroups in every way.

The Book of Mor­mon points out two dis­tinct civ­i­liza­tions that had met­al­lur­gy and woven cloth. The North Amer­i­can con­ti­nent dur­ing the Book of Mor­mon time­line had two cul­tures and only two cul­tures that match this descrip­tion: the Hopewell and Ade­na. The time­line giv­en by the Book of Mor­mon match­es the Hopewell cul­ture and the end of the Ade­na cul­ture. DNA dis­tri­b­u­tion of the Euro­pean and North Amer­i­can con­ti­nent is also a match. There is absolute­ly no way that Joseph Smith could have known about the time­lines and DNA dis­tri­b­u­tion of these two cultures.

Asian Ethnic Tribes

The Asian eth­nic tribes came from the west on the oth­er hand the Great Lake Indi­ans said they sailed here from anoth­er coun­try to Amer­i­ca from the east. “On the con­trary, their tra­di­tions inform us that they came from the west that they crossed the Mis­sis­sip­pi, and that they grad­u­al­ly trav­elled towards the east, “When you ask them,” says Law­son, speak­ing of the Car­oli­na-Indi­ans, ” whence their Fore-fathers came, that first inhab­it­ed the coun­try, they will point to the West­ward and say. Where the Sun sleep, our Fore-fathers came thence As far as my inquiries have extend­ed, all the Indi­an nations on this side of the Mis­sis­sip­pi assert, that they trav­eled from the west, from the north­west, or from the south. Many of them speak of their trav­el across the Mis­sis­sip­pi. The Natchez informed Du Pratz, that before they came into the coun­try east of the Mis­sis­sip­pi, they dwelt near­ly in the south-west, “under the sun” The Musko­hge, or Creeks, assert that they crossed the Mis­sis­sip­pi about the time that the army of Soto ram­bled through Flori­da. || The Chikkasah have told me, that they for­mer­ly lived to the west of the Mis­sis­sip­pi and that they relin­quished that coun­try in obe­di­ence to a dream, in which they were advised to leave their west­ern estab­lish­ment and to go to the coun­try where the sun rises.”
(Bar­ton 1798 pg. XCII)

Fu Sang

How did the Asian eth­nic tribes arrive in North Amer­i­ca? A belief that they crossed the Bering ice bridge 30000 years ago goes against the idea that some believ­ers hold that human life began with Adam and Eve 4000 years ago and against DNA evi­dence. I find the leg­end of Fu Sang an accept­able alter­na­tive vs the Bering land bridge the­o­ry. The leg­end of Fu Sang is that the Chi­nese sailed to Amer­i­ca. The evi­dence used for this are Chi­nese style anchors found off the coast of Cal­i­for­nia, leg­ends describ­ing gigan­tic trees (red­woods found in Cal­i­for­nia) from a new land. Mar­co Polo is also used as evi­dence for Fu Sang. There is a 14th cen­tu­ry goat skin map that shows what looks like the coast of Alas­ka what is believed to be passed down from Mar­co Polo to his posterity.

Series Nav­i­ga­tion: North Amer­i­can Book of Mor­mon Geog­ra­phy — David McK­ane« Tribe of Man­asseh — North Amer­i­can Nephite Mod­elTribe of Man­asseh — Tech­nol­o­gy and Animals »

Posted

in

,

by

Comments

23 responses to “Tribe of Manasseh — Native American DNA”

  1. Noah Avatar

    David, you have obvi­ous­ly done a lot of work on this and I applaud you for it. How­ev­er, it does look a bit like you are being a lit­tle choosy about the data you cite or that at min­i­mum you are going one con­clu­sion beyond your data. That may be unfair of me to say since I don’t have the sci­en­tif­ic foun­da­tion to intel­li­gent­ly val­ue your sources nor the time to inves­ti­gate each of them at length.

    So far though, the sources I have read don’t appear to draw the same con­clu­sion you do. The Wikipedia arti­cle on Hap­logroup X that you ref­er­ence at the top of this page dis­cuss­es no spe­cial con­nec­tion between the Druze and Native Amer­i­can pop­u­la­tions and instead focus­es on the Altai peo­ple as the “best avail­able can­di­date for the ances­tral source region for the Native Amer­i­can pop­u­la­tion sys­tem”. Fur­ther, while describ­ing the Solutre­an hypoth­e­sis, it ref­er­ences a study from 2008 that draws the fol­low­ing conlusion:

    Native Amer­i­can pop­u­la­tions exhib­it almost exclu­sive­ly five mito­chon­dr­i­al DNA (mtD­NA) hap­logroups (A–D and X). Hap­logroups A–D are also fre­quent in Asia, sug­gest­ing a north­east­ern Asian ori­gin of these lin­eages. How­ev­er, the dif­fer­en­tial pat­tern of dis­tri­b­u­tion and fre­quen­cy of hap­logroup X led some to sug­gest that it may rep­re­sent an inde­pen­dent migra­tion to the Amer­i­c­as. Here we show, by using 86 com­plete mito­chon­dr­i­al genomes, that all Native Amer­i­can hap­logroups, includ­ing hap­logroup X, were part of a sin­gle found­ing pop­u­la­tion, there­by refut­ing mul­ti­ple-migra­tion models.”

    From my lay­man’s per­spec­tive, their results sound like strong evi­dence against any mul­ti-migra­tion hypoth­e­sis for hap­logroup X. What is your response to those results?

    Final­ly, do you know of any peer-reviewed papers that find a direct see a Druze source for the intro­duc­tion of hap­logroup X in North America?

    1. Dave Mack
      Dave Mack

      Noah
      I’m going to repeat much of what I have already stat­ed. From the stud­ies that I have done the most recent dna research has point­ed to sev­er­al migra­tions to the Amer­i­can con­ti­nent. I believe the major­i­ty of anthro­pol­o­gist agree with the the­o­ry that their were mul­ti­ple migra­tions as dna analy­sis seems to show this.
      For exam­ple I don’t think any researcher based on cur­rent dna analy­sis believes the Poly­ne­sian, Aus­tralian, Hap­logroup A‑D and X arrived in one migra­tion. Based on recent research Hap­lo group c is believed to have arrived in the Amer­i­c­as 6000 to 8000 years ago. Hap­lo group x is believed to have arrived in the North Amer­i­can con­ti­nent around 13000 years ago. I believe the most cur­rent­ly accept­ed the­o­ries is that there were three migra­tions. But that can change and there is cer­tain­ly no con­sen­sus among all researchers and anthro­pol­o­gist as you can tell from the links below.

      https://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​H​a​p​l​o​g​r​o​u​p​_​C-M130

      Research Arti­cle dat­ed 2014
      http://​www​.sci​encemag​.org/​c​o​n​t​e​n​t​/​3​4​5​/​6​2​0​0​/​1​255832

      Arti­cle dat­ed 2012
      http://​news​.har​vard​.edu/​g​a​z​e​t​t​e​/​s​t​o​r​y​/​2​0​1​2​/​0​7​/​m​y​s​t​e​r​y​-​o​f​-​n​a​t​i​v​e​-​a​m​e​r​i​c​a​n​s​-​a​r​rival/

      When comes to the Druze of Israel being genet­i­cal­ly relat­ed to the North Amer­i­can Indi­ans through Hap­logroup x. Those dna results are con­crete. It does help con­firm the Book of Mor­mon as a his­tor­i­cal record. Sci­en­tist believe Hap­logroup x crossed the Bering land bridge even though there is not a genet­ic trail from the Mid­dle East to the North Amer­i­can con­ti­nent that proves this cross­ing. See my essay and oth­er post for more details.

      I believe researchers are get­ting clos­er to a true under­stand­ing of how the Amer­i­c­as were pop­u­lat­ed. The arti­cle below states that boats/watercraft were used to help in the pop­u­lat­ing of the Amer­i­can con­ti­nents. The rea­son for this is that skele­tons were found on Islands off the Cal­i­for­nia coast that date to when sup­pos­ed­ly the cross­ing of hap­logroup x across the Bering land bridge hap­pened. I would agree with the idea that boats were used as descried in the Book of Mormon.

      http://​www​.uni​cus​magazine​.com/​h​t​m​l​/​1​3​0​00.htm

      See these essays for dat­ing issues. I believe the Hebrew and old world cul­ture and tech­nol­o­gy found among the Hopewell and Native Amer­i­cans cor­rect­ly dates Hap­logroup x arrival in North America.

      https://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh‑4/
      https://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh‑3/

      1. Noah Avatar

        Thanks for the response! I have read the mate­r­i­al you ref­er­enced. Sad­ly, I’m still hav­ing trou­ble under­stand­ing how it sup­ports your con­clu­sions. I still think you’re mak­ing sev­er­al log­i­cal leaps in the genet­ic argu­ment and I’ll try to explain them below.

        You’re right that there is a lot of sup­port for mul­ti­ple migra­tion the­o­ries but none of the evi­dence you’ve linked points to a mid­dle-east­ern source for any of them. For instance, the Har­vard study you linked describes three sep­a­rate migra­tions from Asia: the ini­tial “First Amer­i­cans” migra­tion, one to the far north that can be seen in the genet­ics of the Aleut-Inu­it, and one that has a minor­i­ty influ­ence on the genet­ics of the Chipewyan peo­ple of the Hud­son Bay region of Cana­da. This research does not pro­vide any evi­dence for Nephites, rather it says that the vast major­i­ty of native amer­i­can peo­ples came from the sin­gle, Asian, “First Amer­i­cans” migra­tion. Evi­dence that mul­ti­ple migra­tions occurred isn’t an open door for a Nephite migra­tion. Nor does it indi­cate that any bit of native amer­i­can genet­ic back­ground is unaccounted-for.

        You’re also right that the Druze of Israel are genet­i­cal­ly relat­ed to native amer­i­cans through Hap­logroup X. How­ev­er, this rela­tion isn’t evi­dence for a Nephite migra­tion to the Amer­i­c­as either. Two pop­u­la­tions shar­ing a por­tion of their genet­ic back­ground does­n’t mean one got it from the oth­er. While search­ing for infor­ma­tion on Hap­logroup X in the Amer­i­c­as, I found this arti­cle: http://​www​.csi​cop​.org/​s​i​/​s​h​o​w​/​c​i​v​i​l​i​z​a​t​i​o​n​s​_​l​o​s​t​_​a​n​d​_​f​o​u​n​d​_​f​a​b​r​i​c​a​t​i​n​g​_​h​i​s​t​o​r​y​_​-​_​p​a​r​t​_​t​h​r​e​e​_​r​e​a​l​_​m​e​s​sages/ Its refu­ta­tion of the con­cept of Israelite genet­ics in pre-columbian Amer­i­ca is per­sua­sive and I’d like to know what you think of it. Here’s a sum­ma­ry of its points:

        Hap­logroup X is not unique or espe­cial­ly com­mon in Israelite/Jewish pop­u­la­tions. It shows up in lots of oth­er Old World populations.
        The Druze do show a high­er fre­quen­cy of X but only because they’re a con­tem­po­rary refugium pop­u­la­tion for it, not because X orig­i­nat­ed in Galilee.
        The types of X found in Mid­dle East pop­u­la­tions are not close­ly relat­ed to the types of X found in the Americas.
        This dif­fer­ence means that shar­ing X is not evi­dence for a direct migra­tion from the Mid­dle East to the Americas.
        Focus­ing on only the X rela­tion is mis­lead­ing because it ignores oth­er genet­ic evidence.
        If a Nephite migra­tion had occurred, we should see oth­er com­mon Mid­dle East­ern lin­eages in native amer­i­can pop­u­la­tions. This isn’t the case.
        X began to diver­si­fy about 31,800 years ago, much ear­li­er than a Nephite migra­tion could account for.

        It is uncer­tain how many migra­tions were respon­si­ble for pop­u­lat­ing the pre-Columbian Amer­i­c­as but that uncer­tain­ty isn’t evi­dence for a Nephite migra­tion. So too, we don’t know exact­ly how Hap­logroup X got to Amer­i­ca but that does­n’t mean it came from the Mid­dle East.

        The ener­gy you’ve invest­ed in this effort is com­mend­able and I appre­ci­ate the lux­u­ry of tak­ing ama­teur­ish shots at your care­ful­ly con­struct­ed argu­ment. I’m sure you have an answer for it all and I’m inter­est­ed to hear it.

        1. Dave Mack
          Dave Mack

          Noah
          I’m glad you accept the research that shows a genet­ic link between the Druze of Israel and the North Amer­i­can Great Lake Indi­ans. I don’t know if you read some of the oth­er evi­dence that sup­ports this genet­ic link being from the Old world and Old Tes­ta­ment time­line. One will notice Hebrew and old world prac­tices that are and were found among Native Amer­i­can cul­tures before the Native Amer­i­can way of life was dec­i­mat­ed by being Euro­peans. Besides the genet­ic evi­dence there are arti­facts, archae­o­log­i­cal, cul­tur­al prac­tices, lin­guis­tic, reli­gious beliefs, and his­tor­i­cal accounts that show this con­nec­tion. I think the Mid­dle East­ern Ham­sa sym­bol, fiery fly­ing ser­pents depic­tions men­tioned in the Book of Mor­mon and Old Tes­ta­ment, and Assyr­i­an cul­tur­al aspects are all excel­lent exam­ples of this. See links below.
          https://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh‑4/
          https://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh‑1/
          https://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh‑3/
          https://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh‑5/
          https://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh‑6/

          Not only do these evi­dences help sup­port the Old Tes­ta­ment. In North Amer­i­ca every facet of the Book of Mor­mon and then some, also gains support.

          You state that hap­logroup x is not Jew­ish dna mark­er. That is actu­al­ly excel­lent evi­dence for the Book of Mor­mon and the Old Tes­ta­ment. Lehi is from the tribe of Man­asseh. The tribe of Man­asseh was under Assyr­i­an rule for a hun­dred years and fell away from Hebrew beliefs like the Samar­i­tans fell away from Hebrew beliefs from intermarriage.

          The tribe of Man­asseh and oth­er North­ern King­dom tribes were con­quered and tak­en over by the Assyr­i­ans in 723BC. The tra­di­tion­al lands of Man­asseh become under Assyr­i­an rule, some being deport­ed to Assyr­ia. In 2 Chron­i­cles 30:1–11 explains that the Tribe of Man­asseh was invit­ed back to Jerusalem to wor­ship back at the tem­ple. 2 Kings 17:34 states that they no longer wor­shipped the God of Israel, most like­ly influ­enced by the Assyr­i­an cul­ture and beliefs pro­vid­ed by the Assyr­i­ans. Lehi and his fam­i­ly were most like­ly recon­vert­ed back to tra­di­tion­al beliefs.

          Hap­logroup x besides being found in Israel is also found in what would be Assyr­i­an tra­di­tion­al land to include Iraq, Syr­ia, and Lebanon

          We sur­veyed our Old World hap­logroup X mtD­NAs for the five diag­nos­tic X2a muta­tions (table 2) and found a match only for the tran­si­tion at np 12397 in a sin­gle X2* sequence from Iran. In a par­si­mo­ny tree, this Iran­ian mtD­NA would share a com­mon ances­tor with the Native Amer­i­can clade.”
          (Ori­gin and Dif­fu­sion of mtD­NA hap­logroup X, http://​www​.ncbi​.nlm​.nih​.gov/​p​m​c​/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​s​/​P​M​C​1​1​80497/)

          Genet­ic research does not say how hap­logroup x arrived in North Amer­i­ca. I believe the Book of Mor­mon is the autho­rize fig­ure on that. You may dis­agree with all my con­clu­sions but you can’t dis­prove them.

  2. Wes T
    Wes T

    David, this isn’t at all what I under­stood from Heber’s com­ment. He has shown an under­stand­ing for the DNA stud­ies and then you claim he must not know that hap­logroup X is not of Asian ori­gin, unlike A,B,C,D. Why are you respond­ing with these straw­man arguments?

  3. Heber Avatar
    Heber

    How do you respond to the Brazil 2008 arti­cle in the Amer­i­can Jour­nal of Human Genet­ics: “Our results strong­ly sup­port the hypoth­e­sis that hap­logroup X, togeth­er with the oth­er four main mtD­NA hap­logroups, was part of the gene pool of a sin­gle Native Amer­i­can found­ing pop­u­la­tion; there­fore they do not sup­port mod­els that pro­pose hap­logroup-inde­pen­dent migra­tions, such as the migra­tion from Europe posed by the Solutre­an hypoth­e­sis … Here we show, by using 86 com­plete mito­chon­dr­i­al genomes, that all Native Amer­i­can hap­logroups, includ­ing hap­logroup X, were part of a sin­gle found­ing pop­u­la­tion, there­by refut­ing mul­ti­ple-migra­tion models.”

    1. Dave Mack
      Dave Mack

      Heber,

      There are a lot of dif­fer­ent the­o­ries the bering land bridge to the solutre­an the­o­ry to transocean­ic voy­ages by Poly­ne­sian to South Amer­i­ca. The the­o­ries range from one migra­tion two sev­er­al migra­tions. I believe if I’m not mis­tak­en the most pop­u­lar the­o­ry is that there were three migra­tion from this arti­cle dat­ed to 2012. Cur­rent dna analy­sis geo­graph­ic fea­tures have thrown these the­o­ries into a conundrum.
      I frankly believe the land/ice migra­tion across the Bering land bridge or solutre­an the­o­ry across the Atlantic are all wrong. I believe the evi­dence will show there were transocean­ic cross­ings by ship. In a recent pbs spe­cial they are now say­ing that they may have used kayaks to row from Alas­ka to the Cal­i­for­nia coast. Instead of the unlike­ly cross­ing and super­hu­man feat it would take to cross large glaciers.
      I see no con­sen­sus on their the­o­ries its all debatable.

      http://​news​.har​vard​.edu/​g​a​z​e​t​t​e​/​s​t​o​r​y​/​2​0​1​2​/​0​7​/​m​y​s​t​e​r​y​-​o​f​-​n​a​t​i​v​e​-​a​m​e​r​i​c​a​n​s​-​a​r​rival/

      http://​www​.pbs​.org/​w​g​b​h​/​n​o​v​a​/​e​a​r​t​h​/​m​a​k​i​n​g​-​n​o​r​t​h​-​a​m​e​r​i​c​a​.​h​t​m​l​#​n​o​r​t​h​-​a​m​e​r​i​c​a​-human

      1. Heber
        Heber

        Have you looked at that arti­cle? Because you did­n’t address the ques­tion at all. Why is your non-peer reviewed, invent­ed expla­na­tion bet­ter than the actu­al­ly proven and peer reviewed expla­na­tion from that article?

        1. Dave Mack
          Dave Mack

          Heber,

          Quot­ing from the arti­cle you ref­er­ence it states.

          ” How­ev­er, the pre­cise time and mode of the col­o­niza­tion of the New World remain hot­ly dis­put­ed issues.”
          http://​www​.ncbi​.nlm​.nih​.gov/​p​m​c​/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​s​/​P​M​C​2​4​27228/

          If the the­o­ries that this research paper pro­pos­es are proven you should tell that to all the researchers, sci­en­tist, and geneti­cist who dis­agree with the sin­gle found­ing pop­u­la­tion the­o­ry. The only thing that it proves is that Hap­logroup x is found in North Amer­i­ca and not found in cen­tral and south Amer­i­ca and east Asia and most of Siberia.

          As stat­ed before there are many dif­fer­ent the­o­ries. I believe the the­o­ry about only one migra­tion has not held up against crit­i­cism very well.
          As stat­ed before the the­o­ry that there were mul­ti­ple migra­tions unless proven wrong is the the­o­ry that has the most fol­low­ers among researchers and scientist.

          This research arti­cle dat­ed to 2014 refers to the three wave migra­tion and sug­gest even more than three.

          http://​www​.sci​encemag​.org/​c​o​n​t​e​n​t​/​3​4​5​/​6​2​0​0​/​1​255832

          I’m not a pro­fes­sion­al sci­en­tist, all the research that I do is out my own per­son­al inter­est. Even if I want­ed to get my research and the­o­ries peer reviewed I’m not qual­i­fied to do so but feel free to crit­i­cize any of the the­o­ries or research listed.

          1. Heber
            Heber

            You men­tioned “This research arti­cle dat­ed to 2014 refers to the three wave migra­tion and sug­gest even more than three” ( http://​www​.sci​encemag​.org/​c​o​n​t​e​n​t​/​3​4​5​/​6​2​0​0​/​1​255832), but that arti­cle has noth­ing to do with Native Amer­i­cans. It is irrel­e­vant to this discussion.

            The quote you men­tion from the Brazil study ( http://​www​.ncbi​.nlm​.nih​.gov/​p​m​c​/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​s​/​P​M​C​2​4​27228/) is from the abstract and it is set­ting the con­text for their study, it is not at all refer­ring to their find­ings. If you were to spend time to read the study rather than just dis­miss it based on the sec­ond sen­tence in the abstract, you may find it inter­est­ing. For exam­ple, “There­fore, our results strong­ly indi­cate that the diver­si­ty pat­tern in Native Amer­i­can mtD­NA results from a demo­graph­ic expan­sion in the found­ing pop­u­la­tion in which all found­ing hap­lo­types were present.” They clear­ly refute every one of your DNA claims, show­ing why hap­logroup X is very lim­it­ed in Siberia and found in a lim­it­ed area in North Amer­i­ca. The diver­si­ty of hap­logroup X aligns with the oth­er four groups, strong­ly sup­port­ing a migra­tion of all 5 hap­logroups at the same time.

          2. Dave Mack
            Dave Mack

            Heber

            I did read the arti­cle in its entire­ty. Many researchers and geneti­cist do not agree with a one the­o­ry migra­tion because hap­logroup x is not found in east Asia, cen­tral and south Amer­i­ca. If hap­logroup x did come across the Bering land bridge with the oth­er four found­ing hapogroups then it should be found with the oth­er found­ing hap­logroups in cen­tral and south amer­i­ca and east Asia not to men­tion most of Siberia but it is not. Its excuse as to why it is not I find unac­cept­able. You refuse to accept they idea that the one found­ing the­o­ry is just that a the­o­ry and its unproven nor is it agreed upon by all sci­en­tist who most say there was a three wave migra­tion. I’m glad you find this arti­cle very interesting.
            Also this arti­cle does not explain how Poly­ne­sian and Aus­tralian dna made its way to South Amer­i­ca. Prob­a­bly because the find of Aus­tralian and Poly­ne­sian dna in south Amer­i­ca was a ver­i­ly recent discovery.

          3. Heber
            Heber

            You are using all these periph­ery, non-rel­e­vant cas­es as evi­dence for a very clear hypothesis.
            Let me restate your own null hypoth­e­sis: hap­logroup X came across with the oth­er haplogroups.
            To con­clude that null hypoth­e­sis is false, as you are try­ing to do, you must show evi­dence that hap­logroup X could­n’t have come to Amer­i­c­as with the oth­er hap­logroups A, B, C, and D.

            The Brazil study explains why X is not found in east Asia, cen­tral and South Amer­i­ca and pro­vides evi­dence that it did in fact diverge at the same time as A, B, C, and D in Amer­i­c­as. That breaks your mod­el so you out­right reject it with­out any evi­dence or rea­son, pure emotion.

            The stud­ies you keep ref­er­enc­ing have noth­ing to do with hap­logroup X. The Poly­ne­sian and Aus­tralian DNA in South Amer­i­ca have noth­ing to do with hap­logroup X. The Arctic/Eskimo DNA have noth­ing to do with hap­logroup X.
            Quit throw­ing out red her­rings and give me some­thing that sup­ports your state­ments that hap­logroups A, B, C, D, and X dis­tri­b­u­tions in Amer­i­c­as are from mul­ti­ple migra­tions. Sure there may be oth­er migra­tions, but none of them deal with X.

          4. Dave Mack
            Dave Mack

            Heber

            The way I inter­pret your writ­ing is that you think Native Amer­i­can hap­logroup x specif­i­cal­ly speak­ing hap­logroup X2a the Native Amer­i­can sub hap­logroup from X came from the oth­er Hap­logroup A,B,C, and D from Asia. 

            That would be incor­rect the Native Amer­i­can Hap­logroup x2a is from Hap­logroup X. Hap­lo group x is a hap­logroup found in the Mid­dle East and Europe. It is not found in East Asia nor is it relat­ed to Asians. Hap­logroup x to include the Native Amer­i­can sub hap­logroup X2a is a Cau­casian dna mark­er not a Asian marker. 

            In fact the high­est con­cen­tra­tions of sub hap­logroup x2 besides North Amer­i­ca is found in Israel and Native Amer­i­cans have the high­est con­cen­tra­tion of X2. Sci­en­tist have the­o­rized that the dis­tri­b­u­tion of hap­lo group x emerged from Israel to include the Native Amer­i­can Hap­logroup X2.

            My the­o­ry is which you incor­rect­ly state. Since hap­logroup x orig­i­nat­ed some­where in the Mid­dle East area you should see a genet­ic trail of hap­lo group x from the Mid­dle East to the North Amer­i­can con­ti­nent via the Bering land Bridge. This is not the case. I do not see genet­ic drift as an accept­able excuse. It is absent in east Asia most of Siberia and most of the west coast of North Amer­i­ca to include cen­tral and South Amer­i­ca. Based on this evi­dence shown I state that Hap­logroup x did not come across the Bering land bridge, same way peo­ple say that the Book of Mor­mon is false because Israeli dna is not found in Meso Amer­i­ca. I believe hap­logroup x arrived in North Amer­i­ca as explained in the Book of Mor­mon. The research arti­cle you state does not refute the fact that Hap­lo group x is not found in East Asia. It does not refute that Native Amer­i­can hap­lo group x2a is a Cau­casian dna mark­er. It does not refute the evi­dence that Native Amer­i­can and Israeli hap­lo group x2 is found in Israel and North Amer­i­ca and that it is not an Asian dna mark­er. I use old world tech­nol­o­gy, lin­guis­tic, cul­ture and reli­gious beliefs found among North Amer­i­can Indi­ans to prove my timeline.

            https://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh‑4/

            https://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh‑3/

            You can keep refer­ring to this research arti­cle as your gold­en bul­let but I don’t see it dis­prov­ing any of my the­o­ries or evi­dence I use to sup­port it. The stud­ies that this research arti­cle uses to show a sin­gle migra­tion is not con­clu­sive and is not accept­ed by many sci­en­tist. The rea­son why I quote oth­er research paper about oth­er waves of migra­tion that pop­u­lat­ed North Amer­i­ca is just that. There where mul­ti­ple waves that pop­u­lat­ed the Amer­i­c­as not one and it was just not Asian DNA. It’s con­firmed that Cau­casian Poly­ne­sian and Aus­tralian dna is found in the Amer­i­c­as pre Colum­bus. I hope this helps.

          5. Dave Mack
            Dave Mack

            Heber

            Here ref­er­ences made from research arti­cles refer­ring to Hap­logroup x being a Cau­casian dna mark­er and it being from the Mid­dle East.

            An attrac­tive hypoth­e­sis to explain this geo­graph­ic con­cen­tra­tion of lin­eages which diverged remote­ly with­in an ancient hap­logroup (and which are not iden­ti­fied in oth­er pop­u­la­tions of the region) is that these Galilee Druze indi­vid­u­als rep­re­sent the refugium of an ances­tral group with high diver­si­ty and high fre­quen­cy of hap­logroup X, which was more preva­lent in the region in antiq­ui­ty, and from which the glob­al diver­si­ty of X mtD­NA hap­logroup emerged”

            On the basis of genet­ic analy­sis of some serum and red-cell pro­tein poly­mor­phisms, Sza­th­mary and Reed and Sza­th­mary et al. were able to reveal the pres­ence of “Cau­casian” alle­les in the south­east­ern Ojib­wa (Native Amer­i­can Tribe) and to give an esti­mate of Cau­casian admix­ture of ~30%; how­ev­er, more recent data on oth­er auto­so­mal locus poly­mor­phisms indi­cate that the genet­ic admix­ture may be as great as 50%.
            (mtD­NA and Y Chro­mo­some-Spe­cif­ic Poly­mor­phisms in Mod­ern Ojib­wa: Impli­ca­tions about the Ori­gin of Their Gene Pool)

            We sur­veyed our Old World hap­logroup X mtD­NAs for the five diag­nos­tic X2a muta­tions (table 2) and found a match only for the tran­si­tion at np 12397 in a sin­gle X2* sequence from Iran. In a par­si­mo­ny tree, this Iran­ian mtD­NA would share a com­mon ances­tor with the Native Amer­i­can clade”

            In that case, as it has been pro­posed, hap­logroup X was brought to Amer­i­ca by the east­ward migra­tion of an ances­tral white pop­u­la­tion, of which no trace has so far been found in the mtD­NA gene pool of mod­ern Siberian/eastern Asian pop­u­la­tion” (The Pres­ence of Mito­chon­dr­i­al Hap­logroup X in Alta­ians from South Siberia Am. J. Hum. Genet. 69:237–241, 2001)

            To date, hap­logroup X has not been unam­bigu­ous­ly iden­ti­fied in Asia, rais­ing the pos­si­bil­i­ty that some Native Amer­i­can founders were of Cau­casian ancestry.”
            http://​www​.sci​encedi​rect​.com/​s​c​i​e​n​c​e​/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​/​p​i​i​/​S​0​0​0​2​9​2​9​7​0​7​616292

            Over­all, the sequence data and phy­lo­ge­net­ic analy­sis sug­gest that the Native Amer­i­can and the Euro­pean hap­logroup X mtD­NAs share a com­mon mater­nal ancestor”
            “The 14 Cau­casian-Euro­pean hap­logroup X sam­ples (des­ig­nat­ed “CE1”–“CE14”) includ­ed 2 Cau­casians of Euro­pean ances­try” (MtD­NA hap­logroup X: An Ancient Link between Europe/Western Asia and North Amer­i­ca Michael D. Brown,1 Seyed H. Hosseini,1 Anto­nio Torroni,2 Hans-Ju¨rgenBandelt,3 Jon C. Allen,1 Theodore G. Schurr,1 Rosaria Scozzari,2 Ful­vio Cruciani,2 and Dou­glas C. Wallace1)

            Phy­lo­ge­net­ic analy­sis and coa­les­cence esti­mates for Amer­i­can Indi­an and Euro­pean hap­logroup X mtD­NAs exclude the pos­si­bil­i­ty that the occur­rence of hap­logroup X in Amer­i­can Indi­ans is due to recent Euro­pean admix­ture.” (The Pres­ence of Mito­chon­dr­i­al hap­logroup X in Alta­ians from South Siberia Am. J. Hum. Genet. 69:237–241, 2001)

          6. Heber
            Heber

            I am very per­plexed by your response, David. I under­stand very well that HG X is not a vari­a­tion of HGs A, B, C, or D. And I under­stand very well that HG X2 is found pri­mar­i­ly in the Near East, etc. I feel some­what embar­rassed that my respons­es led you to think so poor­ly of me.

            Your premise that “you should see a genet­ic trail of hap­lo group x from the Mid­dle East to the North Amer­i­can con­ti­nent via the Bering land Bridge” is just non­sense. Why would that have to be the case? That was exact­ly what the Brazil­ian study you seem to irra­tional­ly despise clear­ly refut­ed. Your evi­dence to the con­trary are all from 2001 or pri­or. Sure, there were oth­er migra­tions and some of them may not have been through the cor­ri­dor, but those don’t mat­ter for the HGs in ques­tion: A‑D and X.

            I haven’t seen any study after 2008 that presents a bet­ter expla­na­tion for HG X2a and X2g, please let me know if I am wrong on that point. There is a 2011 study (http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1002%2Fajpa.21614) that com­pared the Native Amer­i­can genomes and found “Tak­ing into account that C4c is deeply root­ed in the Asian por­tion of the mtD­NA phy­loge­ny and is indu­bitably of Asian ori­gin, the find­ing that C4c and X2a are char­ac­ter­ized by par­al­lel genet­ic his­to­ries defini­tive­ly dis­miss­es the con­tro­ver­sial hypoth­e­sis of an Atlantic glacial entry route into North America.”

            I’m not sure how to express the impli­ca­tions of that. X2a is LINKED to C4c, they could not have come from sep­a­rate migra­tions. Do you have any more recent stud­ies that shows there is doubt regard­ing the ori­gin of HGs X2a and X2g?

          7. Dave Mack
            Dave Mack

            Heber

            Noth­ing can take the place of hard evi­dence show­ing that Hap­logroup x left its dna in places that it once trav­eled. If HG X migrat­ed over hun­dreds to thou­sands of years from a fair­ly warm tem­plate cli­mate to sub­ze­ro, freez­ing cold, arc­tic tem­per­a­tures that are inhos­pitable to human life I would like see phys­i­cal evi­dence for that. Using genet­ic drift, founder’s effect etc to explain away the lack of phys­i­cal evi­dence is the same argu­ment Mesoamer­i­can apol­o­gist used to explain away their dna problems.
            Prov­ing that HG X trav­eled with C4C across the Bering land bridge is going to be tough in my unpro­fes­sion­al opin­ion. It was kind of con­fus­ing doing research on Hap­lo group C because they have changed the names of dif­fer­ent sub hap­lo groups of C. So unless I’m miss­ing some­thing a lot of what I read about HG C arrival into the Amer­i­ca hap­pened around 6000–8000BP. There is a huge prob­lem with that. Sci­en­tist believe that Bering Land Bridge was cov­ered by the sea by 11000BP. Sci­en­tist are essen­tial­ly say­ing unless I’m read­ing this incor­rect­ly Hap­lo group C arrived to Amer­i­ca by boat. That makes sense to me because HG C is found on Islands to include the Poly­ne­sian Islands, New Guinea, Melane­sia and Japan. HG C4 is most com­mon HG of indige­nous Aus­tralians. How any­body can tie this with HG X is going to be tough unless they want to say HG X arrived by boat. In that case I would agree.
            https://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​B​e​ringia
            https://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​H​a​p​l​o​g​r​o​u​p​_​C-M130
            http://familypedia.wikia.com/wiki/Haplogroup_C_%28Y-DNA%29

  4. Simon Southerton Avatar

    David,

    Sev­er­al of your claims are demon­stra­bly false.

    You claim that the X lin­eage has not been found in Asia. This is false. It was found in cen­tral Siberia about 15 years ago! This pub­li­ca­tion from 2003 demon­strates that fact.
    http://​www​.ncbi​.nlm​.nih​.gov/​p​m​c​/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​s​/​P​M​C​1​1​80497/

    Mid­dle East­ern X lin­eages are very dis­tant­ly relat­ed to Native Amer­i­can X lin­eages. See paper above.

    You claim the X lin­eage is absent in Pale­oin­di­ans. The X lin­eage has been found in a 9,000-year-old Pale­oin­di­an skele­ton. This means it almost cer­tain­ly arrived in the Amer­i­c­as along­side the A, B, C and D lineages.
    http://​simon​souther​ton​.blogspot​.com​.au/​2​0​1​5​/​0​6​/​k​e​n​n​e​w​i​c​k​-​m​a​n​-​b​r​e​a​k​s​-​h​e​a​r​t​l​a​n​d​-​h​e​a​r​t​s.html

    The Solutre­an hypoth­e­sis is reject­ed by most seri­ous anthro­pol­o­gists because the evi­dence just does­n’t sup­port it.

    1. Dave Mack
      Dave Mack

      Simon,
      The ref­er­ence you are using I exten­sive­ly quote in the essay. You are right to say that Hap­lo group x is found in south Siberia or the Altain region of Siberia.

      The hap­logroup x Alta­ian dna is the small yel­low dot found in south Siberia on the Hap­logroup x dis­tri­b­u­tion map below

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_X_%28mtDNA%29#/media/File:Haplogroup_X_%28mtDNA%29.PNG

      It’s worth point­ing out the Alta­ian Hap­logroup x dna is not relat­ed to the Native Amer­i­can Hap­logroup x found in North Amer­i­ca and it arrived after the Bering ice bridge was not crossable.

      These quotes come from the same arti­cle you use as a reference.

      Third, the few Alta­ian (Derenko et al. 2001) and Siber­ian hap­logroup X lin­eages are not relat­ed to the Native Amer­i­can clus­ter, and they are more like­ly explained by recent gene flow from Europe or from West Asia.”

      It is notable that X2 includes the two com­plete Native Amer­i­can X sequences that con­sti­tute the dis­tinc­tive X2a clade, a clade that lacks close rel­a­tives in the entire Old World, includ­ing Siberia.”

      Hap­logroup X is an excep­tion to this pat­tern of lim­it­ed geo­graph­i­cal dis­tri­b­u­tion. It is found, gen­er­al­ly at low fre­quen­cies, in both West Eurasians and some north­ern groups of Native Amer­i­cans but, intrigu­ing­ly, it is absent in mod­ern north Siber­ian and East Asian populations”

      Native Amer­i­can hap­lo group x is absent in Siberia and East Asia. In my unpro­fes­sion­al opin­ion that is a huge prob­lem for the Bering ice bridge theory. 

      In your book you state that dna dis­proves the Book of Mor­mon as false because Israeli dna is not found in Mesoamer­i­ca but Israeli dna is found in North Amer­i­ca among Native Amer­i­cans. The Druze of Galilee found in Israel have the high­est con­cen­tra­tion of hap­lo group x in the world which is also tied to Native Amer­i­cans. The Ojib­wa Native Amer­i­cans have the sec­ond high­est con­cen­tra­tion of hap­lo group x. In the same arti­cle you ref­er­ence it says that Ira­ni­ans have more in com­mon with Native Amer­i­cans than Siberi­ans or East Asians

      We sur­veyed our Old World hap­logroup X mtD­NAs for the five diag­nos­tic X2a muta­tions (table 2) and found a match only for the tran­si­tion at np 12397 in a sin­gle X2* sequence from Iran. In a par­si­mo­ny tree, this Iran­ian mtD­NA would share a com­mon ances­tor with the Native Amer­i­can clade”

      Using your same rea­son­ing the Book of Mor­mon is true and Native Amer­i­can Hap­logroup x did not cross the bering is bridge because it is absent in Siberia and east Asia.

      Druze of Galilee arti­cle is date to 2008

      https://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/Shlush-et-all-The%20Druze.pdf

      Native Amer­i­can Ojib­wa hap­lo group x dna 26%

      http://​www​.ncbi​.nlm​.nih​.gov/​p​m​c​/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​s​/​P​M​C​1​3​77656/

      Geneti­cist have also the­o­rized that the Druze of Galilee is the refugium were hap­lo group x dis­persed a per­fect match for the bible and Book of Mormon.

      An attrac­tive hypoth­e­sis to explain this geo­graph­ic con­cen­tra­tion of lin­eages which diverged remote­ly with­in an ancient hap­logroup (and which are not iden­ti­fied in oth­er pop­u­la­tions of the region) is that these Galilee Druze indi­vid­u­als rep­re­sent the refugium of an ances­tral group with high diver­si­ty and high fre­quen­cy of hap­logroup X, which was more preva­lent in the region in antiq­ui­ty, and from which the glob­al diver­si­ty of X mtD­NA hap­logroup emerged”

      When it comes to dat­ing Ken­newick man a skele­ton with Hap­logroup x dna he dat­ed to 9000 BP (7000BC) after sev­er­al attempts.
      Ken­nwick man has been dat­ed to 3750BC, 6410BC, 4130BC, and 6130BC. Those are some wide ranges. In my unpro­fes­sion­al and biased opin­ion the sci­en­tist based on their own bias­es kept dat­ing Ken­newick man until they got the date they want­ed. Radio car­bon dat­ing is based on know­ing how much car­bon diox­ide is in the atmos­phere at the time there dat­ing the spec­i­men to and oth­er vari­ables. I frankly do not trust their vari­ables. I believe the old world (Hebrew) lan­guage and cul­ture and tech­nol­o­gy found among the Hopewell Ade­na and Native Amer­i­cans is a bet­ter indi­ca­tion of age. Not to men­tion there is no dna evi­dence for a Bering Ice Bridge cross­ing not only for Hap­lo group x but oth­er Hap­lo groups. See tech­nol­o­gy and Hebrew cul­ture ties that I believe show cor­rect dating.

      http://​www​.nps​.gov/​a​r​c​h​e​o​l​o​g​y​/​k​e​n​n​e​w​i​c​k​/​c​1​4​m​e​mo.htm

      Tech­nol­o­gy
      https://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh‑3/

      Hebrew cul­tur­al ties
      https://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh‑4/

      I believe that the solutre­an and Bering ice bridge for the pop­u­lat­ing of the Amer­i­ca con­ti­nent to be false. But the solutre­an has more dna evi­dence for it than the Bering ice bridge the­o­ry. But your right the major­i­ty of sci­en­tist con­sid­er the solutre­an the­o­ry to be unacceptable.

      Here are some pre­vi­ous­ly post­ed com­ments about radio car­bon dat­ing and holes in the Bering Ice Bridge theory.

      Although hgs A, B, C, D, and X are the five found­ing mtD­NA hap­logroups in the Amer­i­c­as, pre­vi­ous stud­ies have shown the near-absence of hgs B, C, and X in Paleo-Eski­mos and Thule, as well as among present-day Inu­it (25, 43–47).”

      Besides the dna evi­dence I’m using the Hebrew cul­tur­al ties and tech­nol­o­gy to prove the bib­li­cal time­line cross­ing. As far as the tech­nol­o­gy the woven cloth cloth­ing, met­al­lur­gy, breast­plates, and fortress­es is con­firmed by mod­ern archae­o­log­i­cal evidence.
      DNA evi­dence is also caus­ing prob­lems for the Bering Ice Bridge THEORY. It was first believed there was one migra­tion 50000 thou­sand years ago. Then it changed to three migra­tions about 20000 thou­sand years ago and now sci­en­tist believe that hap­lo group x crossed (for which there is no evi­dence for) 13000 years ago.

      No they are adding more migra­tions than just three.

      There­fore, an addi­tion­al Paleo-Eski­mo migra­tion wave should be added to the three-wave hypoth­e­sis in explain­ing the peo­pling of the Americas”

      South Amer­i­ca has Poly­ne­sian dna. So some sci­en­tist believe Poly­ne­sians sailed to South Amer­i­ca. To say that they sailed to South Amer­i­ca pri­or to 12000 bc would be absurd.

      South Amer­i­ca has Aus­tralian dna but there is no Aus­tralian found in Asia or Siberia or the Near East.

      http://​www​.smith​so​ni​an​mag​.com/​s​c​i​e​n​c​e​-​n​a​t​u​r​e​/​D​N​A​-​s​e​a​r​c​h​-​f​i​r​s​t​-​a​m​e​r​i​c​a​n​s​-​l​i​n​k​s​-​a​m​a​z​o​n​-​i​n​d​i​g​e​n​o​u​s​-​a​u​s​t​r​a​l​i​a​n​s​-​1​8​0​9​5​5​9​7​6​/​?​no-ist

  5. Brandon Avatar
    Brandon

    Ok, so I haven’t had enough to time to real­ly inves­ti­gate all of his claims in the paper, but I focused main­ly on the DNA aspect since it is the hinge of his entire the­sis. It seems he has over­looked some of the more recent research regard­ing the Hap­lo­type Group X data that he uses to demon­strate a link between NE Amerindi­an tribes and Europe, how­ev­er, most of the recent research with­in the past 5 years has con­firmed that this X2a group also came across the Bering straight about 20,000 years ago. In fact, a Mon­go­lian girl was found last year with this same hap­lo­type around the time that these migra­tions would be occur­ing. There is even geo­log­i­cal evi­dence sug­gest­ing a nice route to cut across south­ern Cana­da to end up in the east­ern U.S. I can cite many of the arti­cles here, but there is an arti­cle that sum­ma­rizes a now refut­ed hypoth­e­sis that is sim­i­lar to what he presents (DNA aspect): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis

    As far as his anthro­po­log­i­cal find­ings where he tries to asso­ciate the Hopewell Indi­ans with Hebrew ori­gins, I think the more par­si­mo­nious expla­na­tion is that we have a case of con­ver­gent evo­lu­tion (i.e. bats and birds both have wings but that does­n’t mean they are from the same com­mon ances­tor). Why could­n’t the native Amer­i­can’s evolved some amount of com­plex trade sys­tem with cities, bur­ial grounds, com­plex expres­sion of arts, and oth­er relat­ed com­po­nents of an advanced civ­i­liza­tion? The ingre­di­ents for such are present since the SE and NE por­tions of the U.S. are and have been rich in resources to sup­port large agrar­i­an economies with com­plex trade sys­tems. I believe your friend is mak­ing the same mis­take that many 19th cen­tu­ry intel­lects made by assum­ing that since the Onei­da peo­ple were advanced enough to even have a demo­c­ra­t­ic form of gov­ern­ment and semi-cap­i­tal­ist trade sys­tem they must’ve at some point come from a bib­li­cal ori­gin. It sounds great, but the DNA just isn’t there — and it should be. That’s just my two cents.

    1. Dave Mack
      Dave Mack

      I see the radio car­bon dat­ing for the bering ice bridge as unre­li­able. The idea that all the found­ing hap­lo groups crossed the bering ice bridge between 20000–50000 years ago is not sup­port­ed by DNA, archae­o­log­i­cal, cul­tur­al, and lin­guis­tic evi­dence. For exam­ple Aus­tralian, Poly­ne­sian, and hap­lo groups b,c, and x which is found in the Amer­i­c­as is not found in loca­tions to prove a cross­ing across the Bering Ice Bridge.

      Although hgs A, B, C, D, and X are the five found­ing mtD­NA hap­logroups in the Amer­i­c­as, pre­vi­ous stud­ies have shown the near-absence of hgs B, C, and X in Paleo-Eski­mos and Thule, as well as among present-day Inu­it (25, 43–47).”

      The solutre­an the­o­ry which is a bet­ter the­o­ry for Hap­logroup x in my opin­ion does not account for the oth­er hap­lo groups not proven nor does it account for the Hebrew cul­tur­al ties and arti­facts and technology.

      Besides the dna evi­dence I’m using the Hebrew cul­tur­al ties and tech­nol­o­gy to prove the bib­li­cal time­line cross­ing. As far as the tech­nol­o­gy the woven cloth cloth­ing, met­al­lur­gy, breast­plates, and fortress­es is con­firmed by mod­ern archae­o­log­i­cal evidence.

      As far as Hebrew cul­tur­al ties unless you can dis­cred­it the many sources used by his­to­ri­ans and anthro­pol­o­gist is good evi­dence to sup­port a bib­li­cal cross­ing and timeline.

      Tech­nol­o­gy
      https://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh‑3/
      Hebrew cul­tur­al ties
      https://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh‑4/
      sources
      https://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/tribe-manasseh‑6/

  6. Dave Mack
    Dave Mack

    When sci­en­tist first dat­ed mito­chon­dr­i­al eve she dat­ed to 6000BC

    ” Using our empir­i­cal rate to cal­i­brate the mtD­NA mol­e­c­u­lar clock would result in an age of the mtD­NA MRCA of only ~6,500 y.a., clear­ly incom­pat­i­ble with the known age of mod­ern humans.’ ”

    Nat Genet. 1997 Apr;15(4):363–8. A high observed sub­sti­tu­tion rate in the human mito­chon­dr­i­al DNA con­trol region. Par­sons TJ, Muniec DS, Sul­li­van K, Woodyatt

    DNA evi­dence is also caus­ing prob­lems for the Bering Ice Bridge THEORY. It was first believed there was one migra­tion 50000 thou­sand years ago. Then it changed to three migra­tions about 20000 thou­sand years ago and now sci­en­tist believe that hap­lo group x crossed (for which there is no evi­dence for) 13000 years ago.
    No they are adding more migra­tions than just three.

    There­fore, an addi­tion­al Paleo-Eski­mo migra­tion wave should be added to the three-wave hypoth­e­sis in explain­ing the peo­pling of the Americas”

    South Amer­i­ca has Poly­ne­sian dna. So some sci­en­tist believe Poly­ne­sians sailed to South Amer­i­ca. To say that they sailed to South Amer­i­ca pri­or to 12000 bc would be absurd.

    South Amer­i­ca has Aus­tralian dna but there is no Aus­tralian found in Asia or Siberia.

    Hap­lo group X, B, and C dna is not found in paleo Eski­mos. That’s odd con­sid­er­ing all three would have had to have crossed in that Artic region.

    Although hgs A, B, C, D, and X are the five found­ing mtD­NA hap­logroups in the Amer­i­c­as, pre­vi­ous stud­ies have shown the near-absence of hgs B, C, and X in Paleo-Eski­mos and Thule, as well as among present-day Inu­it (25, 43–47).”

    Also I believe the Hopewell and Ade­na tech­nol­o­gy to include met­al­lur­gy and woven cloth came from the Old world. A cross­ing of 12000–50000 years ago would pre­date these technologies

    Also if you can dis­prove the Native Amer­i­can ties to Hebrew and Assyr­i­an cul­ture let me know. Because I’m using that to sup­port my theories.

    In my opin­ion sci­en­tist have been adjust­ing vari­able inputs involved with car­bon dat­ing such as car­bon diox­ide in the atmos­phere to prove their theories

    1. Demetrios Alexander Avatar
      Demetrios Alexander

      Can you share your email address? I would like to share some­thing with you.

  7. mostlypertinant Avatar
    mostlypertinant

    This is non­sense. The 12000–30000 years num­ber isn’t some­thing sci­en­tists just pulled out of their ass. You can tell how long ago pop­u­la­tions inter­sect­ed by how much the DNA has changed: https://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​M​o​l​e​c​u​l​a​r​_clock

    For hap­logroup X and Native Amer­i­cans specif­i­cal­ly, check out any of the top ten or so of these: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=haplogroup+X+bering+strait&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C44&as_sdtp=

Leave a Reply to Noah Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

23
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x