Human footprints near ice age lake suggest surprisingly early arrival in the Americas

[clwnuke 349]

Just when it was safe to assume that modern anthropology / archaeology / genetics had proved the Book of Mormon is fiction (hence some felt they needed to leave the church or are still dealing with a faith crisis) another piece of evidence disrupts the previous iron-clad truths scientists had about the Americas. Or is constant disruption and change what science is all about to begin with 😲!?

I say we need to stop researching in order to stop these kinds of unorthodox discoveries that bring change and anguish to our happy world and cause students stress at test time.

https://www.science.org/content/article/human-footprints-near-ice-age-lake-suggest-surprisingly-early-arrival-americas

Edited September 23, 2021 by clwnuke
sp

[Godless 1580]

51 minutes ago, clwnuke said:

Or is constant disruption and change what science is all about to begin with 😲!?

Science is about knowledge, discovery, and understanding our world. And yes, the endeavors of science sometimes force us to rethink what we know about our world and our history in significant ways. Just ask Copernicus, Albert Einstein (whose theory of relativity was just proven this year, over 100 years after he wrote it), and Charles Darwin. 

Quote

I say we need to stop researching in order to stop these kinds of unorthodox discoveries that bring change and anguish to our happy world and cause students stress at test time.

That kind of thinking is the reason why Galileo spent the last decade of his life under house arrest after being tried in the Inquisition. 

Edited September 23, 2021 by Godless

[MrShorty 1008]

I'm not sure how seriously to take this. I, for one, certainly hope that we don't stop seeking new knowledge and new understanding.

Perhaps you are overly concerned that new knowledge means "constant disruption and change"? Perhaps I am not as swayed by the strong language in the article, but it doesn't seem like a complete rewrite of the prevailing narrative of how the Americas were peopled. The only real change I see is that the previous assumption that people could not have crossed the Bering land bridge until late in the ice ages is wrong. For all intents and purposes, it looks like the main idea that the Americas were populated when people from Asia crossed the Bering land bridge is still intact. Exact timing seems uncertain, but, all in all, not much has changed. Maybe I am making a mole hill out of a mountain, but it certainly does not seem like something from which one should extrapolate that science is bogus and completely unreliable for learning about and understanding the world around us.

[Godless 1580]

8 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I'm not sure how seriously to take this. I, for one, certainly hope that we don't stop seeking new knowledge and new understanding.

Perhaps you are overly concerned that new knowledge means "constant disruption and change"? Perhaps I am not as swayed by the strong language in the article, but it doesn't seem like a complete rewrite of the prevailing narrative of how the Americas were peopled. The only real change I see is that the previous assumption that people could not have crossed the Bering land bridge until late in the ice ages is wrong. For all intents and purposes, it looks like the main idea that the Americas were populated when people from Asia crossed the Bering land bridge is still intact. Exact timing seems uncertain, but, all in all, not much has changed. Maybe I am making a mole hill out of a mountain, but it certainly does not seem like something from which one should extrapolate that science is bogus and completely unreliable for learning about and understanding the world around us.

While looking more into this, I read that apparently some Native Americans have been insisting for a while, based on oral traditions and storytelling, that humans have been on the American continent far longer than the land bridge theory postulates. Pending peer review, it would appear that this new discovery proved the native storytellers right.

[clwnuke 349]

19 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I'm not sure how seriously to take this. I, for one, certainly hope that we don't stop seeking new knowledge and new understanding.

Perhaps you are overly concerned that new knowledge means "constant disruption and change"? Perhaps I am not as swayed by the strong language in the article, but it doesn't seem like a complete rewrite of the prevailing narrative of how the Americas were peopled. The only real change I see is that the previous assumption that people could not have crossed the Bering land bridge until late in the ice ages is wrong. For all intents and purposes, it looks like the main idea that the Americas were populated when people from Asia crossed the Bering land bridge is still intact. Exact timing seems uncertain, but, all in all, not much has changed. Maybe I am making a mole hill out of a mountain, but it certainly does not seem like something from which one should extrapolate that science is bogus and completely unreliable for learning about and understanding the world around us.

As a "scientist" I wrote with a great deal of sarcasm. It has never ceased to amaze me how quickly people will make rash spiritual decisions based upon a rather incomplete knowledge of events and histories, etc., and when those sandy foundations shift under their feet they panic.

If people are patient, the Lord will one day reveal all scientific things about the Book of Mormon and even my PhD cousin whom I love dearly, but who left the Church because he couldn't reconcile native American genetics with the Nephite/Lamanite narrative, will be able to see that all truth is indeed wrapped up in our imperfect but wonderful faith.

[Just_A_Guy 12682]

2 hours ago, Godless said:

While looking more into this, I read that apparently some Native Americans have been insisting for a while, based on oral traditions and storytelling, that humans have been on the American continent far longer than the land bridge theory postulates. Pending peer review, it would appear that this new discovery proved the native storytellers right.

Yes, but with the caveat that I believe most of those traditions insist that their gods basically created them on those particular lands.  It is politically inconvenient to suggest *too loudly* that fundamentally, the so-called “first nations” were just as much colonizers as the Europeans were.

Edited September 23, 2021 by Just_A_Guy

[Fether 3065]

4 hours ago, clwnuke said:

Just when it was safe to assume that modern anthropology / archaeology / genetics had proved the Book of Mormon is fiction (hence some felt they needed to leave the church or are still dealing with a faith crisis) another piece of evidence disrupts the previous iron-clad truths scientists had about the Americas. 

I’m sorry… but how does this provide more evidence for the Book of Mormon?

[Anddenex 3408]

3 hours ago, Fether said:

I’m sorry… but how does this provide more evidence for the Book of Mormon?

It's more the idea that we are learning more and more about the Americas. People said there were no horses before Columbus in America. And then you have this: https://indiancountrytoday.com/news/yes-world-there-were-horses-in-native-culture-before-the-settlers-came

This was one of the major anti-Mormon hit points while I served my mission and after when discussing the Book of Mormon with people over the internet -- YouTube. Joe Schmoe tried to con everyone with horses because he assumed horses were upon the Americas, what he didn't know is there were no horses in the Americas before the Spaniards.

@clwnuke is more saying that in time with all the new facts that scientists (with limited knowledge) said were not true, are ending up proving them incorrect. What else then can they be incorrect about? Like horses, there were "iron clad" findings --- until --- something comes along and proves them wrong.

[clwnuke 349]

14 hours ago, Fether said:

I’m sorry… but how does this provide more evidence for the Book of Mormon?

@Anddenex pretty much covered it. 

[JohnsonJones 2253]

21 hours ago, clwnuke said:

As a "scientist" I wrote with a great deal of sarcasm. It has never ceased to amaze me how quickly people will make rash spiritual decisions based upon a rather incomplete knowledge of events and histories, etc., and when those sandy foundations shift under their feet they panic.

If people are patient, the Lord will one day reveal all scientific things about the Book of Mormon and even my PhD cousin whom I love dearly, but who left the Church because he couldn't reconcile native American genetics with the Nephite/Lamanite narrative, will be able to see that all truth is indeed wrapped up in our imperfect but wonderful faith.

I think it is foolish those who use that "DNA" evidence as evidence that the Nephites and Lamanites could not have been in the Americas.

All that it indicates is that they have connections closer to Asia than to the Jews...BUT...

What was the DNA makeup of the Lost Tribes?  As the Nephite/Lamanite civilization was made up of those from the tribe of Manasseh (though the Mulekites are more questionable...Patriarchal blessings have indicated most, if not all, are descended from Mannaseh from what I have heard), we have only guesses as to how closely they are linked to the Tribe of Judah.

We ASSUME that the link would be somewhat close (as in, at least linked to each other slightly prior to 2000-1500 BC), but we don't know as we do not have DNA that is definitive from that set of Lost tribes (as one would put it).

What is odd are the guesses as to where the Lost tribes went, and one of the big things in the past was to assume they went Eastward, as they were captured and taken in that direction.  It may be that there are connections there that we do not realize. 

Some of the evidence we THINK points to a connection to Asia pretty far back (further back than any connection would be between the Lost tribes and the Tribe of Judah), so we would assume that any connection with DNA between the various tribes of Israel would be closer, but much of that is ALSO based upon an incomplete DNA framework of Ancient Peoples.

DNA scientific work is progressing and getting better every day, but there is still a LOT that we do NOT know.

To base one's absolute facts off of things like that is to build a house on very shaky ground.  It might stand, but at the same time one might find that the thing they thought was true yesterday, has changed as science is constantly evolving (for the better).

Edited September 24, 2021 by JohnsonJones

[Traveler 4238]

On 9/23/2021 at 1:38 PM, clwnuke said:

Just when it was safe to assume that modern anthropology / archaeology / genetics had proved the Book of Mormon is fiction (hence some felt they needed to leave the church or are still dealing with a faith crisis) another piece of evidence disrupts the previous iron-clad truths scientists had about the Americas. Or is constant disruption and change what science is all about to begin with 😲!?

I say we need to stop researching in order to stop these kinds of unorthodox discoveries that bring change and anguish to our happy world and cause students stress at test time.

https://www.science.org/content/article/human-footprints-near-ice-age-lake-suggest-surprisingly-early-arrival-americas

We have known that creatures with close ties to modern humans have been walking the earth for many thousands of years prior to the Biblical date line of Adam and Eve.  Much of which predates even the "Ice Age".  How all this relates to revelation of the Fall of Man is - as near as I can determine - a lot of speculation.  I tend to fall on the side of science and the concepts of evolution.  I would make note that the Book of Mormon talks about a minimum of 3 primary migrations of highly civilized and educated peoples coming to the Americas and bringing with them written language and access to tools.  We LDS are also very open to the idea that many of the current indigenous peoples of the Americas are related to remnants of these 3 primary migrations.

As near as I can determine, prior to the Book of Mormon's first of the primary migrations; that the indigenous peoples in the Americas were mostly uncivilized - without a written language and exclusively hunter - gathers.  I honestly do not know how any religious person with strong ties to the Bible can reconcile any indigenous peoples in the Americas surviving the flood of Noah.  I have attempted to speculate on this subject but have no answer that I think even comes close to answering critical questions.

However, within the time frame presented in the Book of Mormon there was an explosion of civilization in the Americas that can only be explained by a migration of civilized people as suggested by the Book of Mormon.  What was or could have been present prior to these migrations can only be answered by science and perhaps some speculations - neither of which seems to be widely popular among LDS or any Christian sect.  

For myself - I have yet to find any scientific data to indicate that the migrations noted in the Book of Mormon are inaccurate.   I find all the archeological science concerning the Americans to support (as a minimum) the migrations indicated in the Book of Mormon.  I find this more than just interesting because of the fact that when the Book of Mormon was published there was no knowledge of any literate civilizations of large interconnected civilized cities of millions anywhere in the Americas.  And to my knowledge I am not aware of even a single artifact that disproves (or even creates doubt concerning) the migrations documented in the Book of Mormon.

 

The Traveler