National Geographic Shares Native Americans Come from Europe and Middle East

Brian Handwerk, of National Geographic, published an article saying nearly “one-third of Native American genes come from west Eurasian people linked to the Middle East and Europe, rather than entirely from East Asians as previously thought, according to a newly sequenced genome.”

One third of Native Americans came from Europe and the Middle East - says National Geographic. PHOTOGRAPH BY ROLAND W. REED, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC

One third of Native Americans came from Europe and the Middle East - says National Geographic. PHOTOGRAPH BY ROLAND W. REED, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC

The problem comes when he mentions an arm bone of a 24,000 year old Siberian youth. The DNA dating method used is very questionable. More recent methods using mitochondrial DNA are much more accurate.

Here are comments from this article and my responses that may be interesting…

Ken Krogue The DNA shows the same thing. They seem to have come from the middle east and europe about 600 BC.
Bruce Longson Are you trying to say Laminites were real?
Ken Krogue I’m not saying, the data is… smile emoticon
Jacob Yingling very interesting
Ken Krogue And there is a very specific group that the DNA says is Haplo Group X that matches exactly a population that lived in Israel that landed on what looks like the Florida peninsula in about 600 BC and migrated north into the Great Lakes area and became a mighty people we known as the Mound Builders of Ohio/Pennsylvania and covered the entire Mississippi River basin to the Rocky Mountains. They even match today the DNA of about 100 Native American tribes that make up the Algonquin language group. These are the groups like the Fox and Sac tribe, and the Cherokee. My friend Talon Richey is part Cherokee and has this blood line so we have been looking into it big time. They have found steel forges, huge roads and fortresses, with massive earth works topped by timber walls and barricades. They also worked in some areas in cement.
Ken Krogue The other DNA groups are A, B, C, and D that are of another strain that also ties closely to areas of Mongolia and eastern Asia. They seem to have come from the other direction along the Aleutian Island when there seemed to be more of a land mass along that way. Very interesting. I’m wondering what DNA is found among the Polynesian Islands. Don’t know yet. I’m looking into it.
Ben Taylor 24,000 year old bone DNA, cool
Juliana Turner Though, and I’m very sorry to say this, the DNA in the bones founded were from 24,000 years ago. Not 2,600, as when Nephi left with his family.
Mena Seyed-Ashraf There’s no reason to assume this disproves anything because of the discrepancy in counting years. Who is to say that we count years the same way now as they were counted back then? In the old testament people were living to be 500 or more years old while living to be 100 is a goal today. Perhaps we count differently?

Ken Krogue Actually the data methodologies are in question. I have seen other research that shows it isn’t nearly that old. Not even close. There was two different research studies that went back the other directions checking DNA from the Russian Czars through exhuming their known family lines back several generations and checking DNA and found the dating mechanisms may be way off.

Ken Krogue If you are interested I can give you the two scientific journals that document this.
Mena Seyed-Ashraf I always figured that using carbon dating was a guess at best because circumstances and other chemical compounds could change or impact the breaking down process. I’d actually like that if you would share. Thank you!
Ken Krogue The research is about mitochondrian DNA which is inherited mother to daughter and mutates an order of magnitude faster than does nuclear DNA, making it particularly useful at shallow time depths – Evolutionary Anthropology 12:7-18, 2003
Ken Krogue The specific research is through the Czar Nicholas II of Russia and we know all of his ancestors quite a ways back. The rate of DNA mutation is shown to change between he and his current day ancestors is 26 times faster than previously thought. Most in the scientific community started with assumptions that actual science is showing to be incorrect. They assume that the original human ancestors had their origins in Africa around 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. They call “mitochondrial Eve” the first true human ancestor. But a very interesting article called “Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock” in Science, 2 Jan 1998, Vol 279, no 5347, pp 28-29 says something rather shocking: “researchers have calculated that “mitochondrial Eve”– the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people–lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old.”

Ken Krogue's photo.
Ken Krogue The second set of research backing up this claim that DNA dating verifies a completely different set of data comes from Trends in Ecology & Evolution (TREE) Vol 12, no 11, November 1997 and says “The hypothetical descent of mankind from ‘mitochondrial Eve’ has been much debated… some claim 800,000 years to be an upper limit, while most researchers suggest a date of approximately 200,000 years… They sequenced 610 basepairs of 357 individuals from 134 different mtDNA lineages… and found… such a high mutation rate would indicate that Eve lived about 6500 years ago – a figure clearly incompatible with current theories on human origins.”
Ken Krogue Mmmm 6000 years, 6500 years, that sounds very familiar and aligns exactly with a creationist model when you remove skewed perceptions and origins models and align strictly with the data. A lot of people malign science, but when it is really used it is pretty amazing.
Ken Krogue If you start with the wrong base assumptions, you end up with the wrong conclusions. You have to let science guide you even in your assumptions. But what do I know. I’m just an entrepreneur… not a scientist. Entrepreneurs are very practical. We focus on what actually works. We invent things that solve problems. Scientists try and explain why the things invented by technologists and entrepreneurs and inventors actually work.
Ken Krogue Science still can’t even explain everything about electricity…
Ken Krogue Or water…
Two of God’s best inventions… 🙂
Juliana Turner My comment wasn’t to disprove The Book of Mormon — I’m LDS, guys. But it just doesn’t actually prove it either. It’s a very interesting piece of research, that’s is all. You can’t rely in scientific research, dismissing whatever you don’t like about it. Anyway, I’m not a scientist, and obviously had no participation in the resaearch, so I can’t go deeper on this.
Ken Krogue True, unbiased science is actually pretty powerful…
Ken Krogue But its really hard to find… -Ken