DNA study by Sorenson links most Native Americans

Genes from 6 'founding mothers' seen in 95% of Americas' Indians

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Doug Forbes Greenfield, IN
    Nov. 23, 2010 3:18 p.m.

    20K y BP is rubbish. The primary American Indian Y-hg, Q, is 15K-20K years old. Furthermore NAs all belong to a subclude of Q called Q1a3a that is even younger; probably less than 10K years old.

  • Anonymous
    Oct. 11, 2008 1:17 a.m.

    WHAT DOES IT MATTER WHERE THE NATIVE AMERICANS CAME FROM? THEY WERE HERE IN THE AMERICAS LONG AGO. i THINK SOME ONE IS TRYING TO PROVE TO THE MORMONS THAT THE NATIVE AMERICANS WERE NOT FROM THE LAMANITES. THE NATIVE AMERICANS ARE NOT FROM ANY ORIGINS EXCEPT THROUGH THE LINEAGE OF LEHI. THEIR COUSINS RESIDE IN THE ISLANDS.

  • Yih
    July 21, 2008 6:21 a.m.

    There ARE such things and WERE such things as Lamanites. One of the many 'proofs' of any lack of intelligence in this country is the total reliance on faulty genetics and inability to 'recognize' Hebraic elements (cultural, anthropological, and linguistic) spread throughout (even if it isn't a majority in every region) the Americas. That's quite pathetic -and in sheer contrast to the more 'enlightened' Americans of 100-200 years ago.

  • What Lamanites?
    March 18, 2008 9:05 p.m.

    I am an American native. There were never any such people as Laminites. How absurd! You won't ever find any DNA on Laminites because they never existed...whatever the tar ??????

  • Oren
    March 18, 2008 10:20 a.m.

    Strange, some scientists here locally trace a certain spring area to civilizations dating back over 40,000 years. Wonder who their mother was?

  • an ex lamanite
    March 18, 2008 10:09 a.m.

    I wonder what they will be saying about me when they dig me bones up a thousand years from now..."he held a McDonalds container proving he loved the cow over the buffalo!"

  • Willard
    March 18, 2008 9:03 a.m.

    I am not sure what you are saying, but it sounds like you support the theme of accepting your hearts desire in spite of the contrary facts of evidence. In real life this can be a great hinderance to one's association with reality and in a study of history it is total bogus reasoning. In a social context it is a difficult and costly problem to a healthy and successful community.

  • Naysayer
    March 18, 2008 7:35 a.m.

    While data from modern sciences can be interpreted in ways consistent with the BOM claims of Israelitish ancestry and Egyptian culture, some data can also be interpreted in ways that are challenging to BOM claims, such as this DNA study. While trying to be respectful of the strength of scientific claims(if there is any), and not precluding any possible reexamination of scripture to make sure it is being properly understood, Mormons probably hope for a resolution of the conflict.
    However, when an interpretation not in harmony with the findings of modern science is not possible, the LDS do not need to allow modern scientists a "privileged" position in which the scientists automatically determine the outcome.
    It is not justifiable to hold the clear teachings of scripture hostage to current scientific interpretations of data.
    To Anonymous and Willard:
    Your history is incorrect

  • Willard
    March 17, 2008 11:51 p.m.

    To another blind follower, you are probably right and Newton is probably wrong since he didn't sample the fall of all the apples on the tree and made a random decision based on only one apple. It is a wonder any one accepts his research as it must be biased. Yes!!

  • Another Blind Follower
    March 17, 2008 10:15 p.m.

    It's amazing how these great scientists can take random samples from a few people and fill in all of the missing blanks, the history and familiy lines from thousands of years of lost history! And how we accept everythins at face value whenever it is presented to us "from the experts" whose whole career is often based on theories and premises of those theories! Could it be possible that these brilliant researchers would ever consider questions that might discredit their life's work? Unbiased? NO!!

  • DNA rules!
    March 17, 2008 10:45 a.m.

    I'm certain there are bigoted people out there who will just simply come unglued when they learn more and the truth about their own DNA. DNA can be very disappointing to some people... very sad for them. However, DNA IS FACT!

  • Ben
    March 17, 2008 10:42 a.m.

    Their theory that Native Americans and Siberians have been isolated since the disappeance of this "land bridge" is entirely bogus, because it contradicts the known historical record.
    For decades, scientists have tenaciously clung to this "land-bridge" theory in part because it was their best refutation against the Book of Mormon, and in part because they considered Native Americans too inept, too ignorant and too "stone-age" to be able to build a boat.
    Unfortunately for these scientists, the known facts paint a far different picture. For centuries, Native Americans have been colonizing islands throughout the Arctic, which are far more remote and inaccessible than Siberia is. They have travelled hundreds of miles across the open sea hunting whales. They have been travelling to Siberia to hunt, trade and marry into the local tribes for far longer than white people have been in the area. They most certainly have not been isolated from Siberia for 20,000 years. You don't need a degree in genetics to figure that out.
    You and Anonymous have a serious problem in that you view these scientists like religious leaders that cannot be questioned or criticized. You sound like religious zealots desperately clinging to your dogma.

  • D2R2
    March 17, 2008 8:17 a.m.

    Ben,

    Clearly, you do not understand genetics, and giving you a crash course cannot be done in the space provided here.

    Suffice it to say that your accusations that their "entire theory is bogus," simply because of intermarrying and time estimates, reveals your level of ignorance on the subject.

    Unless you show credentials otherwise, we can assume you are an arm-chair hack trying to criticize professional scientists. We will take your faulty logic in that light.

    Until then, we will put more confidence in the opinions of those who know what they are talking about, if you don't mind.

  • Anonymous
    March 17, 2008 1:01 a.m.

    Real Science=Real Scientific Journal. There are other legit studies on this matter in real journals. If you really want to know what is going on in this story, research the scientists that are reporting the data. It should not take long to discredit their data.

  • More to Learn
    March 17, 2008 12:58 a.m.

    I can remember when a court of law condemned men to prison based on just their blood type.
    We only know that we have a lot more to learn. Science is a wonderful thing. It saves lives, it dates history, it teaches respect of the Earth. Next year it will save more lives, give a better quality to those lives, clarify previous studies done, and much much more.
    Religion cannot be proven, it is a personal, tangible, realization to those who ask for it's truth in prayer. Someday, those who do believe will be standing next to God, while he explains to the rest of you what you should have been striving for while alive on this Earth. Good Luck.

  • Ben
    March 16, 2008 11:56 p.m.

    D2r2,

    If "peer review" was supposed to prevent them from getting away with falsehoods, then why didn't any of their peers ever bring up the obvious fact that Siberians and Native Americans have been inter-marrying for centuries, and have not been seperated for 20,000 years, as these scientists have so carefully calculated. A stubborn but true fact, which renders their entire theory bogus.
    Most of these DNA scientists maintain a strong belief in macro-evolution. They have a vested interest in refuting not only the Book of Mormon, but also the Bible. The entire history of the theory of evolution has been rife with fraud that continues even in public school textbooks today. It is almost a conflict of interest for these like minded scientists to police themselves with some sort of "peer review."
    Basically, these scientists take a statistical sampling of DNA of the Native American Population. Then they look for a limited number of male or female genetic markers from very complex DNA patterns which link these populations to a common ancestor. The selective data acquired can be manipulated to say anything the scientists want it to say. Under such circumstances, there will always be room for doubt.

  • Bruce
    March 16, 2008 9:49 p.m.

    It is not news to the scientific or religious community that there were many migrations to the "New World" before europeans travelled here. We have information about only a select few of these different groups. Modern Native Americans are likely descendants of and carry genetic information from these many peoples, including Asians.

  • D2R2
    March 16, 2008 3:05 p.m.

    Ben,

    You are wrong about statistics. None of these researchers could get away with telling lies with statistics because peer review would prevent it. The only abuses of statistics are those perpetrated by those in the popular press or those, like youself, who live according to platitudes and clever quotations rather than the evidence and the data.

    Science and statistics have much more integrity than you are suggesting.

  • Ben
    March 16, 2008 8:38 a.m.

    Anonymous,
    It does not matter whether LDS people have sponsored this study or not. It is well known that there are multitudes of LDS who do not view the Book of Mormon as a literal history of the Native Americans.
    DNA scientists have also told us that every person on earth has a common ancestor. Religious people have long known this ancestor to be Noah. These scientists must walk a fine line between telling us that everyone in the world is related and also tell us that Native Americans have no relation to Jews.
    Your predicted response might be that that common ancestor lived tens of thousands of years ago. Far longer than the Book of Mormon took place. Yet, according to this article, these DNA scientists have also said that Native Americans and Siberians had a common ancestry from 20,000 years ago, when these people are known to have common ancestors from as little as one to two hundred years ago. They thouroughly botched that estimate up, didn't they?
    So far, this DNA "Science" is more like statistical analysis, and you can manipulate complex statistics to say anything you want. There are lies, _____ lies, then there are statistics.

  • Janice
    March 15, 2008 10:07 p.m.

    I liked the article and the DNA research, and the extremely brilliant men behind this very interesting and fabulous work. This is quite beneficial to all mankind. Thanks!!

  • Steve
    March 15, 2008 9:56 p.m.

    What does it matter man has never evidenced truth in his religion. Look back in history and study man's relation with church or religion when has it ever been related to reality it is a way of facing the unknown and nothing more so why do you try to hold mormonism to a higher standard it is just the same old same old dressed in a modern coat of wishful thinking. give it a rest.

  • Anonymous
    March 15, 2008 6:55 p.m.

    To Ben | 11:04 a.m.,

    I am not sure where you are getting your information, but the scientists mentioned in this article are sponsored by LDS people, BYU, and the LDS Church. They have no such assumptions as those you are accusing. They are actually trying to compete with the research by such scientists as Simon Southerton to determine if DNA research CAN find ANY evidence of Hebrew genes among Native American populations. So far, NOBODY has found ANY evidence of Hebrew DNA among Native Americans. Unfortuantely, those results are not consistent with a number of claims made by leaders of the LDS Church, as well as scriptural passages in the Book of Mormon itself, not to mention the teachings of almost every leader of the LDS Church from Joseph Smith to Gordon B. Hinckley.

    No, DNA results cannot PROVE that there is NO DNA from Lehi (or Sariah) among Native Americans unless every member of the population could be sampled. But the probabilities are very high that there is no such DNA, and NO study yet has found ANY.

    More importantly, well-trained geneticists are much better equipped to do this research than you are to criticize it.

  • steve
    March 15, 2008 6:44 p.m.

    Scientists are human too. They believe that ancestors of native Americans must have reached the Americas via the land bridge from Asia. But the DNA doesn't match so they invent their own Atlantis where the six women lived--20,000 years ago, perhaps, so DNA had time to mutate or close enough to Asia to keep their land bridge hypothesis intact.

  • Anonymous
    March 15, 2008 1:02 p.m.

    To Naysayer,

    You have lost touch with reality. Good science HAS gone beyond 18th century "enlightenment" science because that is what science does! It is not "apostate", it is "progress" according to the aims of science.

    I hope you aren't a "flat-earth" conspiracist... but then if you are, you will feel at home in Utah!

  • Anonymous
    March 15, 2008 11:58 a.m.

    The world needs more smart people like Simon Southerton as well as Ugo A. Perego. But more importantly, the world and Utah need more smart people who are smart enough to recognize the value of the research of the smart Southerton's and Perego's.

    Let's hope we find ourselves in the smart camp.

  • Anonymous
    March 15, 2008 11:55 a.m.

    I know of Mormons who have made fun of the Bearing Straights theory and the idea that Native Americans were of Siberian/Asian origin for HALF A CENTURY or more!

    One of my students even wrote a long, well-researched paper on the similarities between American Indian culture, myths, and history and those of the Jews to demonstrate the connection. This student tried very hard to persuade me of the idea, but ultimately failed.

    Of course, as a history teacher, I have always had my doubts about the claims of the Mormons in this regard. Now the DNA science comes through to confirm and vindicate my arguments. Good to see this research getting the airtime it deserves in a Utah paper.

  • Ben
    March 15, 2008 11:04 a.m.

    These scientists have long maintained the false assumption that people in Northern Asia and North America have been isolated since the loss of this "land bridge". Nothing could be further from the truth. These scientists have completely ignored the historical record over just the last few centuries, which tells us Native Americans and Northern Asians have been freely travelling by boat across the Bering Sea, to trade and intermarry for many centuries.
    Of course, based on the historical record we should have fully expected people in North America and Northern Asia to be related genetically, since they have been intermarrying for all these centuries. These scientists have basically told us nothing that we shouldn't have known all along.
    This contradicts these scientists assumptions, and renders their conclusions bogus as well. How can they be separated by 20,000 years if these people are known to have intermarried with each other for the past several hundred years?
    Devoid of false conclusions, these scientists have yet to produce any facts which prove the Book of Mormon wrong. They only have their own cherished opinions, which is all they ever had.

  • Ralph
    March 15, 2008 10:39 a.m.

    The world needs more smart people like Ugo A. perego. The world's future is in science. We only have a limited time to find a way off this planet and on to another world. I don't think it will be done by sending man into space but rather sending man's seeds (genes) in hope of finding a furtile home on another planet.

  • Alice
    March 15, 2008 10:30 a.m.

    I agree with William, look at Santa Claus he has never hurt anyone and he makes a lot of people happy and teaches us to give, celerbrate, family reunion, and to love. We need guide posts and examples to follow in living life. Man has and will always have his totems. It is a Christmas gift of God.

  • Naysayer
    March 15, 2008 10:07 a.m.

    Excuse me Frank, one million more people went to alternative health care practitioners last year in the USA alone.
    Obviously, people are leaving your "medical treatment" in droves.
    I agree with Winston Churchill who said the modern age of science was going to fly us on its wings right into stone age.
    I also am offended at the "privileged" position scientists want in our world, especially over spirituality. It is UNAMERICAN for people to be on unequal grounds because of their beliefs, but that is exactly what modern science has always aimed for.
    For all you science-friendly religions people out there, know this:
    Today's modern science has NOTHING in common with the Renaissance scientists such as Galileo, Copernicus, Paracelsus, or Isaac Newton. Modern science is APOSTATE from them.

  • MIke
    March 15, 2008 10:04 a.m.

    The Garden of Eden is a metaphor for the pre-existence. The term "a thousand years" in the scriptures should be interpreted as "a really, really long time." Many of the stories in the Old Testament attribute things to God that are definitely not the work or words of God. In any event, I don't think that we do well to take everything in the Bible literally (because much of it is literally not true). I believe all of the above and consider myself a believing and faithful member of the LDS church. The "limited geography" explanation for Lehi and his progeny is the only credible possibility in light of our current understanding of history and science.

  • billy bob
    March 15, 2008 9:40 a.m.

    If you want solid evidence about this study consider 3 things. The DNA testing took place at BYU. The study was funded by Ira Fulton, a devout supporter of BYU. And the LDS church recently changed the title page of the BoM to say that "some" of todays Native Americans are descendants of the Lamanites. They know that DNA evidence is proving their previous claims false.

  • It's true, but.....
    March 15, 2008 9:27 a.m.

    Amazing how so many LDS folks think that because we have the Book of Mormon, we have the answers to all of the anthropological questions that can be posed about the peopling of the Americas. Or that so many feel they can reason out, by use of the Bible and Book of Mormon, what happened to individuals and societies over the centuries as the world populations changed. The Book of Mormon only purports to evaluate a certain group of people over a certain period of time; modern LDS scholars tell us there were millions more inhabitants of the Americas than those upon whom the Book of Mormon focuses. We may feel we have the only "true" church, but that by no means means we have all there is to know. Lighten up all y'all, and stop showing your ignorance by tying to impress us with what you think you know of science or what you think you can deduce on the basis of a sketchy understanding of those two spiritually-based books.

  • a scientist
    March 15, 2008 8:42 a.m.

    A quote from Mark Twain seems particularly pertinent here:
    "There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment in fact."

    The scientists have done a fairly good job on this publication. They use only mitochondrial DNA. It seems a pity that many are trying to wrest a few of their "facts" to disprove what the Book of Mormon did not say.

    Having looked at the study itself, I find that it pretty much harmonizes with what that Book of Mormon says.

  • north carolina LDS
    March 15, 2008 8:17 a.m.

    A plea to my LDS brothers and sisters: let's not get bent out of shape every time a study comes out implying that the Nephites did not give rise to the entire Native American population. A lot of this is based on Mcconkie writing that the BoM people are the primary ancestors of Native Americans. First of all, it's ridiculous to assume that there were one 2 migrations to the Americas. Second, it wouldn't be the first time Bruce Mcconkie was wrong. It's perfectly reasonable to believe that the Nephites' interpretation of their world (being the lone inhabitants)was myopic due to their limitations in travel and communication.

  • Pete
    March 15, 2008 6:47 a.m.

    You are all forgetting "Big Bang, Big Bang."
    And here we are. Nice to meet you.

  • Rave on
    March 15, 2008 6:21 a.m.

    Rave on anti BoM peoples

  • Anonymous
    March 15, 2008 5:52 a.m.

    Not to worry Mormons--there is plenty of evidence to show that there were Hebrews in Ancient America. March 23, 1971, there was a picture of the Star of David found in an Inca tomb (shown in the Deseret News that day); a Mexico City professor of Anthropology claimed that this proves that Hebrews were in America as early as 1000 B.C. Also check out Thor Heyerdahls studies culminating in the Ra I and Ra II expeditions where he goes crazy trying to prove to anthropologists that the American Indians came from the Middle East. Doug Crippen

  • Mike
    March 15, 2008 4:39 a.m.

    "Science can be fooled by God". Why would God want to do that? Does God operate by deception? Faith is a powerfull motivator, but it has one significant weakness. It can be (and often is) misplaced. When this happens, where is "truth". Supporters of the "Historicity" of the Book of Mormon seem to be getting increasingly desperate in the face of challenges to it. This new DNA "evidence" does not in any way disprove the Book of Mormon, but just as importantly, neither does it lend any support for its historical claims.

  • Greg
    March 15, 2008 2:55 a.m.

    I wonder if anyone read the part of the article that said: "The study also confirms the presence of genetic subgroups of more rare, less known and geographically limited genetic groups who arrived later." I am grateful to have this science help confirm the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.

  • LDSTexan
    March 14, 2008 10:44 p.m.

    I find it interesting that only the validity of the LDS faith is being questioned. If the DNA evidence shows that these common ancestors lived 20,000 years ago that disproves anyone who believes that Adam and Eve were on the earth only a couple thousand years ago, whether they are Catholic, Muslims, Baptist, or whatever. Faith is not about scientific proof, and this doesnt effect my belief in Jesus Christ in any way.

  • William
    March 14, 2008 9:10 p.m.

    What is all the fuss about, no one ever said the BOM people were a historical account of physical nature, they are a religious people from devine revelation. It is the elan of their existence that inspires truth just listen to their message and learn.

  • shadow
    March 14, 2008 8:49 p.m.

    to Reader: you kind of rode that horse a little hard, don't yah think? True, it was accurate... but many are not ready for that kind of icey water on the face. You have to use a little logical persuasion here and there, some balm would be nice.

    As humans with a brain for analysis, we are faced with the age old dilemma. Do we believe in what our authorities tell us (mom, dad, school teachers, religious leaders, politicians, sociologists, etc.) or do we follow that 2 plus 2 is 4? When confronted with something that rearranges our thinking, or could, do we use our brains or do we fall back, get lazy in our thinking, and just accept things so that we can keep our job, our position in society, our authority as an adult?

    Frankly, it is good use the brain that someone gave us. I think we could even say it is expected, accepted, that we use this brain. Medicine? Engineering? Nutritional sciences? Agriculture? Fish/wildlife? Vaccinations? If we can use the science and the scientific method to be "Good samaritans" on earth, where is the wrong? It is ok to read and believe in science.

    Shadow Knows.

  • To Rob and Frank
    March 14, 2008 7:56 p.m.

    Hallelujah!!!!

  • Doesn't make mathematical sense
    March 14, 2008 7:31 p.m.

    If Indians have six founding mothers, then these 6 must not have any mothers in common or else Indians would have fewer than 6. If this is the case, according to evolution, how could two or more separate lines of humans have evolved?

    This doesn't make mathmatical sense.

  • jim h
    March 14, 2008 7:02 p.m.

    King Harold---Every human is the child of a mother who's female line goes all the way back along a female line. Your mother had a mother who had a mother who had a mother & so on. Everyone on the planet is the product of a female line that goes all the way back. It's not very unusual.

  • DNA FACT
    March 14, 2008 6:53 p.m.

    DNA says everything about everyone. Nothing anyone can say or do to dispute DNA... It's a fact! Take it, leave it or ignore it, whatever anyone of you want to believe or contain in your mind or noodle is all up to you. If you want to brush off the truth about DNA-so be it. No one cares because there will still be DNA no matter what!

  • Juan
    March 14, 2008 6:17 p.m.

    I would like to offer a few random thoughts on this topic:

    1. The scientists analyzed 200 samples from American Indians (yes, I know they are not East Indians and Columbus was mistaken, but anyone born in America is a native American; I, for one am not native to anywhere else, nor do I see myself as hyphenated; nearly all the Indians I have known, Apache, Navajo, Pueblo, Seneca, Mohawk, Hopi, etc., call themselves by tribe or nation first and "Indian" second, except, of course, the youth who went to politically correct government schools in the last 10 years or so)to determine the mitochondrial DNA of all North, Central and South American Indians? The federal government recognizes over 500 tribes in just the USA alone. Then there are all the tribes in Canada, Central and South America. Doesn't 200 samples seem insignificant statistically? 200? Gallup would be laughed at with that paucity of data.

  • SFFA
    March 14, 2008 5:50 p.m.

    To Utah Republician, Wasn't Lehi a Jew? If so, the Native Americans can't be his decendents as there are no Jewish DNA in them. Is there any proof of a man called Lehi any way??

  • Reader
    March 14, 2008 5:46 p.m.

    Let's put this as bluntly as possible, there is not a single non-Mormon scholar with expertise in the relevant areas anywhere in the world, to my knowledge, who believes any of the claims of the BOM.

    You can cherry pick evidence, twist semantics, completely gut the historical understanding of the BOM (which was it was a history of the American Indians and the American Indians, and Samoans, and Chileans, and on and on, were all Lamanites), relegate it to some tiny area in Central America, and cite to Mormon apologists publishing in Mormon publications that are not peer reviewed from now until the cows come home, and it will not change the fact that the ovewrhwelming weight of scientific, contextual, archelogoical, genetic, anthropological, sociological, military, and statistical evidence (as it relates to the completely absurd population growth rates in the BOM, which exceed by a factor of 100 in some cases the highest known historic growth rates) evidence does not support that the BOM is an accurate record of any ancient people anywhere in the Americas, period.

  • Anonymous
    March 14, 2008 4:48 p.m.

    It is only fitting that as science has matured over the past 250 years, to the point of being capable of solid DNA analysis, that the question of the origins of the American Indians should be explored using our best science.

    The idea that the American Indians had their origins in Israel dates back as early as 1765 (Boudinot, 1816) or before, in America, England, and Denmark.

    At least two relatively extensive books on the subject were available in New York and Vermont before 1828, and the provocative idea was extant in that region and in Europe (producing multiple editions of some of these books).

    In these books and in the ideas they spawned are all the concepts, prophecies, scriptural supports, and claims that can be found in Joseph Smith's works and teachings. He added little (if anything) that was new.

    I'm afraid that science is destined to debunk yet another myth. Hold on; it will be a passionate battle between faith and science, as the comments here attest. But I think science has the better track record.

  • bored
    March 14, 2008 4:47 p.m.

    I see even though the moderator warned posters to keep to the subject: DNA and Native Americans, we have those who insist on making this another "bearing one's testimony" thing.
    Why don't these people go to Mormontimes and slug it out there?
    This is very boring.

  • DNA on Mormon Pioneers
    March 14, 2008 4:25 p.m.

    To Ruth
    Thanks for your scientific proof. I also believe in God. I don't think any of us just didn't happened. I also believe that DNA is quite helpful in figuring out who comes from whomever and wherever. It's nice that you believe in what you think to be true because I have too many questions?

    I read the article on Ugo Perego last Dec/Nov? on Joseph Smiths DNA. They found some descendants who were not Joseph Smiths, who had formally claimed they were. I would certainly like them to do some DNA on Brigham Young and wives and descendant. Perhaps they have already done so and I missed the article? They need to do some DNA work on the entire Polygamy cults, and find out who belongs to who????

  • Fredd
    March 14, 2008 4:15 p.m.

    I thought the BoM said the continent was unihabited? Also that The original Lammanites (nephites, you know the ones from Isreal) populated the entire continent? Or at least dominated the entire continent? Wasn't the great battle fought in New York? I thought the Limited Geography Theorey was new and somewhat contreversial. Many who say this DNA study is irrelevant are discounting this.

  • WM
    March 14, 2008 4:18 p.m.

    Hey, I don't know much about mormons. Why is it that all of you immediately push aside any DNA evidence that goes against your belief? Being religious myself, I would research anything that contradicted some of my beliefs (excluding evolutionary and atheist theories). So why do you always just say "I believe what I believe and nothing, even if it's cold, hard fact, will change that."

  • Shamrock is back . . .
    March 14, 2008 4:13 p.m.

    and on the warpath. I accept the landbridge theory as plausible, especially since DNA EVIDENCE has shown that indians came from Siberia.

    All you Mormons -- I'm not "anti-mormon", but I do want to know how you can "back up" your Jerusalem theory without any evidence other than Joseph Smith's book.

  • Utah Republican
    March 14, 2008 4:12 p.m.

    These scientists are obviously left leaning, probably socialists, and more than likely Democrats who are trying to undermine the beliefs of the people of the great state of Utah. All of the right thinking people of Utah know that the earth is only 6000 years old and that the North American continent wasn't populated until a few hundred years BC by the descendents of Lehi. No scientific evidence, no matter how accurate or well respected, can change that fact.

  • Rick
    March 14, 2008 4:10 p.m.

    Does this disprove the Book of Mormon? No.
    Proof and disproof are such misunderstood concepts.
    But even if it DID disprove the Book of Mormon, would people leave the Church in droves? No.
    Jehovah's Witnesses suffered a drop in members when their predictions about Jesus' coming failed. Those who remained were even more dedicated than ever.
    Matt.16:28 included a prediction that failed. Early Christians fell away. Those that stayed were more dedicated. Later scripture was altered to turn that "coming" into a figurative, future one rather than an immediate, literal one. Thus the Kingdom of God on earth became a figurative place in heaven.
    (1) religious leaders make bold predictions, teach radical doctrine, and prophecy amazing things to entice followers
    (2) when their predictions, prophecies, and doctrines fail, believers rationalize their beliefs to overcome the cognitive dissonance they are experiencing. Rationalization increases dedication.
    The same is happening with DNA and the Book of Mormon.

  • Bart T.
    March 14, 2008 4:08 p.m.

    Active LDS. There is not one shread of DNA evidence that Native Americans came from the Middle East but from Asia. Some show me where I am wrong. It is as if there is no Lamanite population that existed but here is no trace of them any where based upon archealogy, lingustics,or DNA sampling. How puzzling. Any thing you present that nulls my argument is based on circumstancial or legendary evidences.

  • Trebor two two
    March 14, 2008 3:59 p.m.

    How can DNA be acurate: If you believe in the Bible, Would we not all be related to Eve?
    I don't think Sience has all the answers
    to DNA or Carbon dating.

  • Anonymous
    March 14, 2008 3:56 p.m.

    What is that I hear from across the ocean? The voice of Simon Southerton: "I told you so; I told you so"

    Science is what it is. Arguing against it the way many of you are doing only makes you look foolish. And nobody wants to have "missionary discussions" from a fool!

    If you want to preach the gospel, you have to speak the language of the people, and that language is SCIENCE!

  • Could it be?
    March 14, 2008 3:50 p.m.

    How do we know that the DNA found today didn't come from another planet when the world was created? Perhaps it could be from another kind human or some kind of similar species.
    I think the people in the L D S church have their DNA on people just a bit mixed up. They just aren't relly certain who's who?

  • Anonymous
    March 14, 2008 3:52 p.m.

    Nope.
    I think I'll stick to the Natives themselves in proudly declaring:
    "We've ALWAYS been here."
    But thanks for your posts just the same.

  • Ruth
    March 14, 2008 3:53 p.m.

    I do not care what any research lab says. I know the Book of Mormon is the word of God. The native Americans are related to Nephi, Moroni and all the others who came here from the Middle East.
    I have prayed and fasted too many times about this and other things. Labs can speculate all they want to. I trust the Holy Spirit.

  • King HaroldBlueTooth
    March 14, 2008 3:30 p.m.

    I don't agree with your assessment, I believe that your initial assumptions are incorrect. First, we already know that this continent was populated probably from peoples who immigrated across the Bering Strait. I believe a skull found close to the Mexico City airport in 2002 was carbon dated at 13,000 years. So given the fact that this was not an uninhabited land mass, reason dictates that after thousands of years of many generations, any Hebraic mtDNA, if there is such a thing, would have been absorbed among those that were of a much large population base.

  • Anonymous
    March 14, 2008 3:04 p.m.

    Is this about DNA or Book of Mormon testimonies?

  • shadow
    March 14, 2008 3:01 p.m.

    Yes, it is the old problem of, "Don't confuse me with the facts." Next, "Shoot the messenger!" "Hack slash, slice, and dice!"

    When I believed that root beer was the root of beer, I knew I would not like it. When I tasted it, wow! It was not beer, it was... well root beer.

    The scientific findings are facts. They do not attack anything or anyone. But they do cause consternation in those who thought that root beer must be surely be a beer.

    It is hard to change. It is so hard to come to a conclusion that what you thought was ok or true yesterday, is so patently false today. Many people in this forum are having troubles. The report's findings challenge their view. Since their view must be right, because it has been held for years, then the report must be wrong. It is as simple as that.

    How did mankind ever get rational enough to build an airplane, when we just know that metal can't fly! Our parents, our society told us so!

    But darn!!! There they are, flying around us, all the time.

    It is hard to change.

    The Shadow enjoyed reading these statements.

  • King HaroldBlueTooth
    March 14, 2008 2:56 p.m.

    And finally we get to the DNA issue and the Lamanites. As reported throughout this blog sometimes correctly and incorrectly, mtDNA is passed down from Mother to child, both daughter and son. However, it is not passed down from son to anyone else. So, yes indeed there are breaks. Imagine the statistical possibility of a mtDNA string being passed from female to female to female, etc. with no breaks occurring. Additionally, it is reasonable to assume that there were potentially hundreds of thousands if not tens of thousands of folks already living somewhere on the American continent. So when you mix 20, 30, 40 Nephites who eventually intermarried, what is going to show up in their DNA 2,000 years later? Again, this is mitochondrial DNA not nuclear. The statistical possibility of say Nephis wifes DNA showing up is nearly impossible. It's our initial assumptions that we need to analyze rather than take the position that everyone else is wrong.

  • Anonymous
    March 14, 2008 2:49 p.m.

    So, does this mean The Theory of Evolution is to be accepted over Creationism?

  • Who are you?...
    March 14, 2008 2:37 p.m.

    Science has been a bible to me. It has opened my eyes to all mankind. I believe there is definitely a God, but not a man made God by all the many religions out and about on our planet.

    Some guy just happens to get a notion to start a new church and then it starts up all over again-- a new religion a new church for everyone to join. This is good for those who are lost and don't know which way is up or down. So these kinds of people need a crutch to hold them up and through a very crazy mixed up world. This is fine for some, but not for me. I will praise God from my own heart and admire all of his wonderful creations. But I will not worship or bow down to man or his made up religions and concocted notions for a good fiction story.

  • DMN Moderator
    March 14, 2008 2:36 p.m.

    Please keep comments on this story on topic. Off-topic comments will not be posted and previous off-topic posts have been deleted.

  • Fredd
    March 14, 2008 2:33 p.m.

    harry, you demonstrate the blinders people of faith put on when science contradicts something they believe in. Ice is frozen water, a solid. It has more volume then liquid water. Also liquid water runs to the lowest point. So if the land bridge is a mere foot above sea level then the ice would melt, run into the ocen and expose a land bridge. I know you know this. To me a litmus test of religion is can it accomodate science? Middle Age Christianity could not accomodate evolving knowledge of the world. But it was the men of that era not the teachings. I'm not Mormon, but is it possible you true faith can accept these ideas? Or are they so core to your faith that your faith cannot coincide with modern science? Those who say God is fooling science are making themselves look foolish. I can believe God's plan was evolution and be okay, can you? I can believe Adam and Eve and the flood, garden of Eden etc were parables an be fine. Can you?

  • Columbus
    March 14, 2008 2:28 p.m.

    Now this guy was lost and he discovered the Natives having a BBQ with all the fixings. Same thing here!

  • to anomy12:56
    March 14, 2008 1:58 p.m.

    You are correct, the tower of babel didnt happen. It was just a story that tried to explain why there were so many languages. Other things that didnt happen are: Noahs flood, Adam and Eve, Lots wife, and other bible stories. All probably have some truth, but not how they are written (by men) in the bible.
    That said, humans have sentients (sp). We think therefore we are. I live everyday doing to others as I would have them do unto me, without the threat of punishment or reward. If you prefer to believe in a church and it makes you feel good about life then that is great and I wish you well. If the only thing from keeping you from doing wrong by your fellow man is your ultimate punishment or reward, then you will invariably do those things anyway.

  • TwoHandz
    March 14, 2008 1:51 p.m.

    Here we go again! Someone telling the Native Americans where they came from and from whom. To top it off, this has to be coming from non Native researchers and therefore, the validity becomes questionable. A Native American research that has been skewed once again.
    The Native Americans have always been here and have been for centuries. It doesn't take a PhD to research this finding.

  • Ruth
    March 14, 2008 1:49 p.m.

    What does it matter if the BOM is historical or not, it is inspirational and provides a good philisophical guide of thought and how to live a better life.

  • Anonymous
    March 14, 2008 1:50 p.m.

    What?
    Scientific evidence and a logical conclusion?
    What's next? - Proof of Evolution?

  • Anonymous
    March 14, 2008 1:19 p.m.

    *** "If "science can be fooled by God," then God sounds like kind of a jerk." ***

    I don't know that that alone makes God a jerk, but I've always felt that the idea that God would condemn to eternal hellfire those hundreds of millions (or billions) of otherwise decent people who for one reason or another don't believe in a story the evidence and logic of which is severely lacking would make him a jerk.

    If that's the kind of God that He is then I'd prefer not to spend eternity with him, anyway.

    Not that I think that is the case. For my sake.

  • Anonymous
    March 14, 2008 12:56 p.m.

    The tower of Babel didn't happen either I guess, because supposedly all the different lineages sprung from that event. I guess I shouldn't believe in anything, when we die were worm food. When I have someone flirt with me, I should act on it, screw the consequences. I am just an animal, right? Why have ethics if that's all we are, just act out our animal urges. Nah, I would rather believe in God, I have lived both ways and have more peace believing in something then living with no principals. What is the worst thing that can happen by living the gospel? I have the love and respect of my wife and I die with hope and a clean conscience. I will take respect with love and a side order of hope please.

  • Anonymous
    March 14, 2008 12:55 p.m.

    fr1nk,

    thank you for this. it seems nobody knows how carbon dating actually works.
    carbon dating is very accurate when used correctly.

    thank you!

  • Frank
    March 14, 2008 12:43 p.m.

    fr1nk,

    Don't try and explain science to naysayers. They won't believe it unless they get cancer and want medical treatment.

  • Harry
    March 14, 2008 12:23 p.m.

    When the climate im- proved and the ice melted, people "found an open, free corridor to go to America," he said.

    Wait a minute, I thought when the ice melted the land bridge would be covered with water. What going on here? My faith in the science that only gets more accurate is shaken.

  • to science/religion
    March 14, 2008 12:16 p.m.

    You are greatly mistaken if you think that humans lived in the time when Pangaea existed 250000000 years ago. Hominids in their most primitive form were not around until 5000000 years ago.

  • Anonymous
    March 14, 2008 12:01 p.m.

    Oh no!
    Now Thomas is quoting scripture to us!

  • fr1nk
    March 14, 2008 11:51 a.m.

    Radio carbon dating is quite accurate for the time frames involved. It is not complicated. All living things "breathe" air which has a certain percentage of carbon 14. Carbon 14 is radioactive. When something dies it stops taking in carbon 14, and the carbon 14 they took in decays at a well established rate. So when you compare the ratio of C12 to C14 you can with great accuracy tell when that thing died.

  • Geronimos Cadillac
    March 14, 2008 11:49 a.m.

    It's hard to be an NDN, everyone else trying to define you in one form or another , then try being a parent and explain all the labels which really mean nothing as it is what is inside that counts!

  • Rob
    March 14, 2008 11:49 a.m.

    Hmmm... I enjoy studies, but if I've learned one thing from the media, it is to check their sources. I'll have to get my hands on that study some time the future to see what they really said. Several years ago I read articles on the report for WMD from Iraq, then I read the dozens of pages those reports were based on. Realize, please that those dozens of pages were a summary. I immediately lost faith in those media reports. Then I read the hundreds of pages that those dozens were a summary of. After that, I said to myself, good grief, the summary doesn't do it justice. I wondered why they created the summary, then I realized that it was because our elected representatives have probably never ready anything longer than a couple of dozen pages and wouldn't have known what to do with the full report. In conclusion, when I read an article like this, I say to myself, "Cool there's a study I should check out, it sounds interesting." The rest is just garbage.

  • Thomas
    March 14, 2008 11:32 a.m.

    "ONE MAJOR PROBLEM" -- The more reasonable interpretation of the passage in the Bible that says the lands were divided in the time of Peleg is that it refers to the land being parceled out and divided among different tribes -- basically a real estate transaction, not a physical separation of the continents.

    If "science can be fooled by God," then God sounds like kind of a jerk.

  • ale thompson
    March 14, 2008 11:22 a.m.

    thats great

  • Science/Religion have one truth
    March 14, 2008 11:13 a.m.

    Scientists couldn't even take my DNA in the present, and tell you where I have lived or where I have been in just my life--by plane, land, or boat--let alone if I had lived 20,000 years ago. But possibly six women from Asia did make it to the America's by land long ago, and had many ancestors. DNA doesn't even say those women were born in Asia. It says their parents were Asian, but they could have been born in America, or the Netherlands for all we know. What really does this prove or disprove?

    I still don't see how true science and true religion can't co-exist as one truth.

    We know from both that the Earth's land was once one large mass. Both show that people were found all over the land, at all different times. We know from both that all people originally descended from two parents. Both know the Earth has undergone great changes. Both know that people have had varying levels of technology, but neither documents when the first boat was used. Time discrepancy? Science tracks current natural processes, not accounting for how the creation may have followed a more sped up time frame.

  • Thomas
    March 14, 2008 11:05 a.m.

    "...sometimes God lets things happen to...confuse us."

    Not *my* God.

    "God is not a man, that he should lie...." (Numbers 23:19.)

    "...people [want to] justify ... their scientific beliefs."

    Heaven forbid!


  • Re: Global Warming
    March 14, 2008 10:58 a.m.

    Right on Global Warming....Right on! I like that..."Climate Improvement". Eat that one up Al Gore.

  • John Reynolds
    March 14, 2008 11:04 a.m.

    The dating methods are flawed and everyone knows it.
    They just can't seem to get it into their heads.

  • Baby Steps
    March 14, 2008 10:35 a.m.

    What does this study have anything to do with when those ancestors arrived in the New World and how does it prove anything about the timing of the arrival??? And what about Noah's flood? There seems to be some serious dating errors in science and/or possibly in interpreting religious records. But then again... the earth is flat, global warming is a real threat, Pluto is a moon, and UFOs don't exist. It's amazing how much we think we know through science and really we are clueless. I'm all for research, but let's not get carried away into thinking that current scientific theory is absolute fact/truth.

  • ONE MAJOR PROBLEM
    March 14, 2008 10:27 a.m.

    The BIBLE says that in the days of PELEG, the land masses were one, and divided. There could not have been a LAND BRIDGE 20,000 years ago, since the land was solid at that point.

    Consider this, IF the LORD moved a mountain over night, would the geologist say the mountain was JUST put there, or would the mountain seem to the geologist to have been there for millions of years. Assuming the mountain ACTUALLY was moved by the LORD, the day before? Of course, the mountain would look to have ALWAYS been in the current spot.

    Science cannot be trusted to tell us all things that we need to accept on faith. Science can be fooled by God.

  • Monkeys
    March 14, 2008 10:18 a.m.

    Y'all are nothing but monkeys. The DNA matches perfect!

  • Thomas
    March 14, 2008 10:22 a.m.

    "Why not ask one yourself" --

    Oral history isn't worth the paper it's written on.

    Ever play that game where you tell a person a story, and then he passes it on to the next person, and so forth down a line of ten people?

    The story you get at the end is usually completely different from the original story.

    The Viking sagas originated as oral traditions long before they were written down in the 1200s. If you take them as gospel, you have to accept the existence of trolls, ghosts, witches, and all kinds of bizarre things.

    Oral traditions may contain fragments of the truth, but overall, they're hardly one step removed from the realm of myth.

  • Anonymous
    March 14, 2008 10:20 a.m.

    The 20,000 year timeline is based on the current rate of genetic mutation. If some event in the past caused several mutations to occur in one generation the time could be shortened by several thousand years. Conversly, however, if mutations are happening more quickly now, (for example because of polution) then the time could actually be much longer.

  • Global Warming
    March 14, 2008 10:04 a.m.

    Did anyone catch the phrase in the article that "the climate improved". Now days, they call that global warming. We should call it "Climate Improvement"

  • Robert
    March 14, 2008 10:08 a.m.

    Once both are understood, religious truth and scientific truth are never in conflict. So this study is to be welcomed.

  • Kurt
    March 14, 2008 9:43 a.m.

    Actually if you read the article carefully you will find that they have no more proof these ppl were asians then they have that they weren't from the middle east. They even state they cannot connect them with asia and they use the excuse of the DNA being changed over time. If anything this just proves that they have no idea and are just speculating. The landbridge is all theory they have no proof, they just base it on their believe that no one ever built a boat to cross the seas before Columbus.

  • Fredd
    March 14, 2008 9:37 a.m.

    I love the comments about how science always changes so you can't believe it. Science becomes more accurate over time. Over a given 10 year period (or so) there may be contradictions, but eventually science moves towards truth. Unfortunately faith does not. Faith is rigid and persecutes those who say the earth is round or the universe rotates around the earth. If your faith does not allow for the expansion of knowledge then you need to ponder that. I can believe in the God of Abraham and Jesus and still allow vast amounts of change in my understanding of the natural world. If the BoM is proven, or at least beyond a reasonable doubt, proven to be untrue where do you go?

  • Mona
    March 14, 2008 9:29 a.m.

    If y'all are interested in the subject of DNA testing as it relates to ancestry, go to National Geographic's website and read about their "Deep Ancestry" project. It's very interesting and shows how the ancestry of modern humans is complicated. In other words, those of us w/ European background might not realize that our ancient ancestors migrated through Asia or India to get to Europe.

    One of my sons was born with a trait known as "Mongolian blue spots", an indication that we have ancestry from that part of the world. For years I assumed this was an old wive's tale, but am now waiting for DNA results to give me more information.

    As for the Lamanites, scientific studies have shown that the American continent was already peopled when Lehi's family arrived here (600 BC), and it should be assumed that this small band of people intermixed with the older settlers. I have never heard it preached that all Native Americans are descendants of that one family.

  • why not ask one yourself?
    March 14, 2008 9:12 a.m.

    To always: 8:35 -

    I suggest you ask a Native American that question.

    Their history has been passed down word-of-mouth for generation after generation.

    They have ALWAYS been here.

  • Mark
    March 14, 2008 9:16 a.m.

    To fr1nk: Archaeologists have found evidence supporting what you suggest. Stone tools believed to have been used in boat-building were found at Eel Point on San Clemente island off the coast of southern California. A quote from the article Seafaring clue to first Americans, Paul Rincon, BBC News online, 2/26/04: People in North America were voyaging by sea some 8,000 years ago, boosting a theory that some of the continents first settlers arrived there by boat.

  • Bruce
    March 14, 2008 9:08 a.m.

    As one who has plotted taking my canoe with provisions from central Illinois down the rivers to the Mississippi and then up the Missouri to Jackson County; I'd say water transport to North America seems more practical. Why do you need a land bridge at all? Why walk over the land bridge and then get into your boat to travel along the coastal waters to South America? Assuming you left Russia/Alaska land bridge and came south; why in the world would you pass the northwestern states and hike all the way through the deserts of Mexico to get to Chile quickly. It doesn't make sense to me. There's more to the story. Lots more boat transport of peoples than we have evidence of so far.

  • Just a thought
    March 14, 2008 9:05 a.m.

    20,000 years? Every time I see these dates I just wonder. They are such irrelevant numbers. The margin of error is huge, the methods used to come up with these numbers are just "hopes" that they are correct (they are less than theories). Only a few science/biology teachers I've had actually were brave enough to argue that these dating methods are actually quite like a guess in the dark.....They are the current method, and very popular today, so nobody wants to appear like they're off.... but if you read textbooks carefully..... it's there - carbon dating, etc. sounds lame!

  • Rico
    March 14, 2008 9:01 a.m.

    The warning flag should have gone up with the 95% number. C'mon, think for a moment. That would mean the researchers would have needed samples from the highest latitudes of Canada to the tip of South America. What happened to the DNA of the Polynesian populations scientist are fairly confident reached the americas. What of the DNA of the Vikings we know settled in North America? My own research shows the founder of the whole native American population to be a tall skinny guy with brown shoes and a well trimmed mustache.

  • Poor research touted as fact
    March 14, 2008 8:58 a.m.

    200+ samples from a population that is over 1,878,285 in just the US. Add the Canadian and central/south American populations and you show that the study proves nothing and disproves nothing. As for the land bridge, proof from the DNA being related to Asian DNA; What's to prove that Boats were not used? Just because a Group of Asians came to America doesn't prove that other groups didn't.

    This is bad research and a whole lot of guessing. When they finally do get a good cross-section of the population then they should start talking about the results and leave the theories out.

  • Ernest T. Bass
    March 14, 2008 8:54 a.m.

    "Are they sure?" Very funny stuff.
    20,000 years ago? I was always told that all humans but eight were drowned about 5000 years ago.

    DNA studies would be welcomed by a lot of people around here if they showed links to the Hebrews. The fact that they show no link turns regular guys into DNA experts.
    If the outcome of these studies were different, these 'experts' would be using it as proof, in their favor.

  • Can God Change Genetics?
    March 14, 2008 8:50 a.m.

    I'm not sure I understand why people want to prove the BofM is wrong due to genetic research. (It is quite possible I do not understand gene study.) If you believe that we came from the same parents (Adam and Eve) , and even though there are several races and peoples, shouldn't we all have the same genes? In my mind God has the power to tweak, change or mutate genes, for his own wise purposes. Otherwise, wouldn't the whole world be the same race, color etc? We have more than one instance in the scriptures that people changed. I ask how did this happen? God has that power.

  • l
    March 14, 2008 8:45 a.m.

    just because they can be linked to the same small group of ancestors doesn't mean they were in america the whole time

  • fr1nk
    March 14, 2008 8:37 a.m.

    I have never liked the land bridge explanation. I picture a group that used small boats to skirt the coastline, fish, and hunt marine mammals like sea lions. If they "walked" over some land bridge, I dont think they would have ended up in South America so quickly. If any anthropologist who would like to chime in on this, I would like to hear it.

  • To always:
    March 14, 2008 8:35 a.m.

    How on earth do they know that?

  • Thoughtful
    March 14, 2008 8:34 a.m.

    There were two very interesting statements in the report: first, "this is the most comprehensive research ever into the genetic origins of Native Americans."
    second, "The scientists studied all available complete mtDNA data for Native Americans, amounting to more than 200 samples."

    Assuming the correctness of the two statements, I am led to my own conclusion -- there are not enough data yet to be very sure of anything. How many opinions do the political pollsters collect before they try to predict an election? But the preliminary results are interesting. Stay tuned.

  • Walter
    March 14, 2008 8:12 a.m.

    What will we do if a "Scientific Research" "shows that our Lord and Savior was only a regular "joe" with good intentions?. I set my beliefs on faith and testimony and not on "scientific researchs". after all science changes all the time, and a testimony by the Spirit never.

  • always
    March 14, 2008 8:03 a.m.

    The Native Americans I know tell me:
    "We've ALWAYS been here."

  • Sorensen off-base
    March 14, 2008 7:54 a.m.

    This is not the kind of research that the Sorensen people tout when they try to get people to participate in their project. I'm glad that I have not given them my DNA sample, and I'd be willing to bet they have very few samples given by Native Americans. This sounds like research based upon a thesis that should never have been a part of their project.

  • jorda
    March 14, 2008 7:34 a.m.

    Someone with knowledge, please help readers reconcile post-Fall Bible time line with science. Thanks so much in advance.

  • RE: Are they sure? 5:24 a.m
    March 14, 2008 7:18 a.m.

    Ha Ha Ha! Funniest thing I've heard for a long time - Hilarious! Thanks for the laugh!

  • Juan Figuroa
    March 14, 2008 6:43 a.m.

    Let's be specific: Can trace one specific line of their ancestry. Seriously. Misleading headline. Misleading story. BTW -- and the other five percent?

  • Carl
    March 14, 2008 5:56 a.m.

    This scientific study is only the newest piece in a very large puzzle. Next year, if not next month, a newer finding will modify some of it.

    Even a well-intended newspaper reporter cannot do justice to the subject. D.M.News, you didn't add to your credibility, publishing this reporter's understanding of the study.

    A lot of people, most of whom are Not Smarter Than A Fifth-Grader about genetics, will try to draw huge unwarranted conclusions.

    And the study is not actually available -at this time- on the plos.org website, for those who do understand enough to want to read the whole report.

    Stand by for a lot of interesting but irrelevant comments.

  • Anonymous
    March 14, 2008 5:53 a.m.

    But the Lamanites are descended from Laman and Lemuel. How can this be? What will we tell our Native American friends now?

  • leroy
    March 14, 2008 5:40 a.m.

    Very interesting. This reflects the same thing I was taught in high school. Maybe those anthropologists and archeologists had it right. Land bridge. well... how about that.

    This information also reflects and old saying: the more you know, the more you realize you don't know.

  • russ
    March 14, 2008 5:27 a.m.

    20,000 years ago. Does that upset anyone's paradigm?

  • Are they sure?
    March 14, 2008 5:24 a.m.

    I thought the Indians came over on ships from the Middle East. I remember seeing paintings of this when I was a kid. These were huge people, and they looked white, too. Even their children were built like weight lifters.

  • Common Sense Approach
    March 14, 2008 3:47 a.m.

    Be careful how you view this particular 'research.' Any scientific research can show huge variations of data, statistics and figures from the exact same information. Remember, there could be a possible hidden agenda here from this research group, even though they MAY claim to be independent.