Chief Joseph and SargonII ties up Book of Mormon DNA

[_Lemmie]

The tablet is about 4000 years old. Extensive dna research at that time did not exist but its a proven fact the closes genetic link to native American haplo group x is iran. The Assyrian empire was also located in the Northwestern part of Iran

“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 Nannagle 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, "

Before you move on to another source, could you comment on the Smithsonian article, and why you used it to support a theory when the article comes to virtually the opposite conclusion, effectively discrediting your theory?

[_SteelHead]

The tablet is about 4000 years old. Extensive dna research at that time did not exist but its a proven fact the closes genetic link to native American haplo group x is iran. The Assyrian empire was also located in the Northwestern part of Iran

“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 Nannagle 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, "

The DNA evidence does not mean what you think it means. It is also 12K years old. AT LEAST. It does not support the Book of Mormon.

[_bomgeography]

The tablet is about 4000 years old. Extensive dna research at that time did not exist but its a proven fact the closes genetic link to native American haplo group x is iran. The Assyrian empire was also located in the Northwestern part of Iran

“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 Nannagle 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, "

The DNA evidence does not mean what you think it means. It is also 12K years old. AT LEAST. It does not support the Book of Mormon.

I have to go with the scientific evidence that is most accurate when they conflict with each other. there were multiple migrations to the Americas. But migrations do not fit the terminology very well. There were multiple trans ocean voyages. To include a Polynesian, Australian, and most definitely a middle eastern voyage all three of those dna markers are found in the Americas. The middle east marker found among North American Indians. The dna evidence is supportive of some Asian haplo groups making it to the Americas via ocean voyages. Certain Asian haplogroups are missing in key areas to show a migration across a barren ice bridge. Some of the Asian haplo groups being absent are in modern day and paleo Eskimos. The biggest argument that once was against the Book of Mormon in terms of DNA is now its biggest defense ironic I know. What the problem is dna evidence conflicts with the dating of Haplo Group x and other Haplo groups, unless of course cave men were sailing across the oceans. Another example and mystery is that there was a migration to Australia 40000 years ago. Last time I checked Australia was an island. I’m going with the dna evidence its supported by cultural evidence. Scientist need to make the variables with radio carbon dating match up with cultural and dna evidence. They changed the first dating of Kennwick man by 3450 years. That same number used in the opposite direction falls well within the Book of Mormon timeline.

The Book of Mormon mentions three migrations to North America. For those voyages not mentioned in the Book of Mormon I think it’s safe to assume God had his hand in it. The Assyrian timeline falls within the Book of Mormon. What I found out recently is that Chief Joseph Cuneiform tablet specifically names the moon Goddess nanna. I wrote in my Hebrew and Cultural links that I believed the crescent shape objects found in prehistory archeological sites and worn by early Native Americans was an Assyrian moon God Sin. Doing more research sin was the incorrect god the correct god is the moon goddess Nanna. Chief Joseph had on his medicine bag an Assyrian star of Ashur. His medicine bag probably had the cuneiform tablet that mentions one of the gods they and their ancestors worshipped Nanna. Inna another god that Assyrians worshipped is on the Shawnee creek stone. The cultural and dna evidence all match up. It conflicts by thousands of years with current dating of middle eastern dna arrival to America.

[Guest]

Do you even read the stuff you link? The Polynesian ancestor dna in the article you linked is 15k+ years old and doesn't involve sailing. As you fail to comprehend what you read, what makes you think you are qualified to opine on science topics?

How bout we go back to Lemmie's question a few posts upthread.

[_bomgeography]

Do you even read the stuff you link? The Polynesian dna in the article you linked is 15k+ years old and doesn't involve sailing. As you fail to comprehend what you read, what makes you think you are qualified to opine on science topics?

How bout we go back to Lemmie's question a few posts upthread.

How did Polynesians arrive in South America 15000 years ago

[_SteelHead]

The ancestors of the Polynesians walked to the Americas.

[_Lemmie]

Do you even read the stuff you link? The Polynesian dna in the article you linked is 15k+ years old and doesn't involve sailing. As you fail to comprehend what you read, what makes you think you are qualified to opine on science topics?

How bout we go back to Lemmie's question a few posts upthread.

How did Polynesians arrive in South America 15000 years ago

It wasn't about that. The outstanding question for you is this:

Before you move on to another source, could you comment on the Smithsonian article, and why you used it to support a theory when the article comes to virtually the opposite conclusion, effectively discrediting your theory?

[_bomgeography]

The ancestors of the Polynesians walked to the Americas.

That's not what its saying Polynesians from the Polynesian islands arrived in South America.

Polynesians walked from the Polynesian islands to the artic region of Siberia then to South America?

You sure about that?

[_SteelHead]

You didn't read the article, did you? Please quote from the article you linked where it talks about transoceanic voyages.

Other analyses haven’t looked at Amazonian populations in depth, and genetic samples are hard to come by. So the Harvard lab teamed up with researchers in Brazil to collect more samples from Amazonian groups to investigate the matter. Together they scrutinized the genomes of 30 Native American groups in Central and South America. Using four statistical strategies, they compared the genomes to each other and to those of 197 populations from around the world. The signal persisted. Three Amazonian groups—Suruí, Karitiana and Xavante—all had more in common with Australasians than any group in Siberia.

The DNA that links these groups had to come from somewhere. Because the groups have about as much in common with Australians as they do with New Guineans, the researchers think that they all share a common ancestor that lived tens of thousands of years ago in Asia but that doesn’t otherwise persist today. One branch of this family tree moved north to Siberia, while the other spread south to New Guinea and Australia. The northern branch likely migrated across the land bridge in a separate surge from the Eurasian founders. The researchers have dubbed this hypothetical second group “Population y” for ypykuéra, or “ancestor” in Tupi, a language spoken by the Suruí and Karitiana.

Nothing here indicates anything besides for walking across the land bridges that existed during the ice ages 10K+ years ago.

[_bomgeography]

You didn't read the article, did you? Please quote from the article you linked where it talks about transoceanic voyages.

I did read the article and it matches up with what I'm saying dna evidence does not match up with world migrations theory.

"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. The latest genetic analyses back up skeletal studies suggesting that some groups in the Amazon share a common ancestor with indigenous Australians and New Guineans. "

"Reich’s lab, noticed that the Suruí and Karitiana people of the Amazon had stronger ties to indigenous groups in Australasia—Australians, New Guineans and Andaman Islanders—than to Eurasians"

"There’s just one problem: Evidence of Population y doesn’t persist in modern Eurasian groups, nor does it seem to show up in other Native Americans. 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. "


says Skoglund. “And these founding populations connect indigenous groups in far apart places of the world.”

One thing this article does not talk about is that sweet potatoes arrived in south America from Polynesia long before Columbus discovered the America. As stated the cultural and dna evidence does not match up with the dating of the populating of the Americas.