Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson with AIG, They Had Names

[00:00:00] Thanks for being here. My name is Kevin Conover. I’m your host on Educate for Life. And uh we are streaming live on

[00:00:05] Facebook. We’re also going to be a podcast on all the different podcasts, Spotify and so forth. We’re also on

[00:00:12] YouTube, so we’ve got all kinds of shows uh amazing guests who talk about how God

[00:00:17] has impacted their lives and then how God is using them to impact the lives of the people around them. And uh our guest

[00:00:23] this evening is Dr. Nathaniel Jensen. He has a BS in molecular biology and bioinformatics. informatics from the

[00:00:30] University of Wisconsin. He also has a PhD in cell and developmental biology from Harvard University and he’s the

[00:00:37] author of Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of the Species and Traced Human DNA’s Big Surprise. Um he works with

[00:00:44] Answers in Genesis. They’re very well known. Answers in Genesis.org. If you’ve ever heard about the arc, the full-size

[00:00:49] arc, they’re fantastic out in Kentucky. Um and we’ve had Dr. Dr. Kenham or Kenham also on the program in the past

[00:00:57] along with many other people that work with answers in Genesis. Uh Dr. Jensen recently wrote a book called They Had

[00:01:03] Names: Tracing the History of the North American Indigenous People. And uh Dr.

[00:01:09] Jensen, uh thanks for being with us today. Thanks so much for having me on. Absolutely. Uh why did you name the

[00:01:15] title of your book They Had Names? That’s interesting. I’d say for a couple different reasons. One was for me this is I guess a a long

[00:01:24] process of discovery. This has always been a mystery to me what happened before Europeans arrived in the Americas

[00:01:30] and I I grew up knowing nothing and most of my adult life then too. And

[00:01:36] for me there’s always sort of the benchmark or the comparison to European history. Learn the history of Western civilization and you have names of kings

[00:01:44] Henry VIII, you have King George. All these people, their empires, their actions, you have dates. I mean in one

[00:01:50] sense history gets a bad rap because it’s boring but the fact that you learn all the or we learn all these things

[00:01:56] builds I think inherent even if subconscious respect you know what happened you there there’s this there

[00:02:03] there’s a history here that transpired and that gives dignity and value and so when there’s nothing there and I think

[00:02:10] for many Americans myself included didn’t you know did Native Americans still exist it just don’t go to

[00:02:15] reservations they’re such a small part of the population so they had names is cuz the research not only brings the

[00:02:23] pre-climate Americas back up to sort of that standard benchmark of history of western civilization but it does it to

[00:02:28] the level of we have names now of specific conquerors of victors and and

[00:02:34] also then I feel like just the whole genre of Native American history so much

[00:02:40] of it almost all of it focuses on sort of postc contact wild west that sort of thing there’s a lot of pathos along with

[00:02:46] this I mean a lot of it’s just unpleasant history to read the interactions, the the battles, the death

[00:02:53] and suffering, all that. And so, uh, I feel like that there’s a pathos element

[00:02:58] to that then, too, which is, yes, it it’s dignity and value, but there’s people here. It’s it’s not just, hey,

[00:03:04] we’ve reached this academic standard, but there’s real people now with faces and identities and histories that we can

[00:03:12] begin to get to know as a result of this research. Yeah, I find this to be incredibly

[00:03:18] interesting. Um, as a teacher at a local um, Christian high school, we have a lot

[00:03:23] of um, students that are Native American and uh, a lot of different tribes down

[00:03:28] here in Southern California. And it’s very interesting to talk to them about their history and um, what they know

[00:03:35] about their history. You know, um, it looks like, you know, this this has a

[00:03:41] lot to do with the creation evolution debate, but it’s not immediately apparent. um what is the significance?

[00:03:46] Why is this such a big deal when it comes to the creation evolution debate? It’s a little bit below the surface, but

[00:03:52] the once kind of the light bulb comes on, the implications are

[00:03:57] gigantic, I guess, in one sense. So for anyone who’s done a I guess a debate

[00:04:03] with your neighbor or person on the street or just online engaging atheists or even if you’re a student go off to

[00:04:09] college all you’re going to hear basically unless you go to some just a handful of young earth creation schools is evolution and what’s the professor

[00:04:15] going to say? You can you can raise your hand. I mean I did that in I went to secular college secular university and

[00:04:21] it usually revolves around well what about the fossil record? What about DNA comparisons? What does the evidence say?

[00:04:27] And you can debate it back and forth and poke holes evolution, but the ultimate fall back in class or online and really

[00:04:35] legally is the decisions made by the courts in the 1980s which said it’s not

[00:04:41] enough to poke holes in evolution which I think was partly reaction to the success creationists had in the 70s

[00:04:46] doing a good job in the public debates poking holes in evolution but in another sense it just goes out of the basic

[00:04:51] nature of science. They said if if you want to have a place at the table creationists. So again to me it’s

[00:04:58] logical if evolution is wrong just discard it and teach something else. But that’s not the way the courts have gone.

[00:05:03] They said we’re just going to stick with evolution until you can give us something better. And specifically the technical term manifestation of this is

[00:05:10] in in in the sense of testable predictions. So sure God said it. I

[00:05:16] believe that settles it. But they’d say but what predictions does the Bible make? If you believe God created Adam

[00:05:21] and Eve, predict for us something that’ll advance our knowledge of the world. You can’t just be anti-evolutionary. Again, I I’m one who

[00:05:27] fully endorses a lot of the anti-evolutionary work because it’s been very effective. It’s persuasive for the lay person because it it it makes sense.

[00:05:34] But the courts are saying we need to go beyond that. And so much of my 15 years as a professional creation scientist has

[00:05:40] been aimed towards that end. Can we make predictions? And so what what this book

[00:05:45] represents and the book I did before then traced uh and I should actually back up to so replacing Darwin 2017 put

[00:05:52] predictions in print and one of them specifically was and it’s a simple one. It’s not something unique or profound to

[00:05:58] me uh or not unique to me. It’s it’s not really profound if you think about it. But the Bible says you read Genesis 6

[00:06:05] through8 6-9 God destroys the entire globe with a flood. Destroys all pre

[00:06:11] flood civilization. That’s the important point for human history and saves only Noah, his wife, his sons, and their

[00:06:17] wives. Genesis 9 is explicit saying from these three, Shem, Hem, Japheth. The whole earth was repopulated. And so all

[00:06:23] the civilizations that we read about in school, ancient Egypt, ancient Sumer in the Middle East, the Manowans and Cree

[00:06:30] and all that, all that must necessarily be post flood. Or another way to say it

[00:06:35] in summary terms is the entire history of civilization is the post flood history. And so therefore, all those

[00:06:42] events should leave some sort of signature in our DNA. Or maybe what I’m really getting at is in terms in relative terms, our DNA should be chalk

[00:06:49] full of the history of civilization, evolution makes a different prediction because for them, you know, 200,000

[00:06:55] years ago, first anatomically modern humans in Africa and way, you know, 195,000 years later with just 5,000

[00:07:01] years left, then civilization starts. It’s almost not even worth looking for under an evolutionary perspective. And

[00:07:07] so traced was really the yes we found the fulfillment of this prediction. The Native American work takes it a step

[00:07:13] further. But I think it it it really uh accentuates this. So if I can change the analogy or metaphor slightly. What the

[00:07:20] courts have said in a sense is yes we recognize creationists have done lawyerly work in a sense of the debates

[00:07:27] represent cross-examination of the evidence. The evolutionists present their case. Creationists come along. Nope, you made that assumption. Nope,

[00:07:33] you forgot about this evidence or that sort of thing. It’s it’s kind of like a lawyer cross-examining a witness or

[00:07:38] presenting his case. The courts have said you have to do detective work. Go find some evidence on your own, build a

[00:07:44] case, crack a case, solve it. And the supreme form of this would be a cold case. And I I bring this up because in

[00:07:50] evolution there’s I’d say layers of cases. So for them, the origin of species is not a cold case because they

[00:07:57] would say ever since Darwin, hey, we’ve had an answer. You may not agree with our answer, but we’ve been promoting an answer for 150 years. the Native

[00:08:05] American history, pre-European history of the Americas. I mean, we still don’t learn about in school. Secular Christian, no one has any answers in

[00:08:12] that sense. It’s an evolutionary cold case. There’s this general framework of they would say 15,000 years ago, one

[00:08:18] migration across the Bearing Straight, rapid dispersal, but then it’s basically hunters and gatherers for the next

[00:08:23] 12,000 years. There’s no playbyplay. They couldn’t tell you what’s the greatest battle, who’s the greatest

[00:08:28] hero, who actually fought the greatest battle. None of those things you’ll find in books because they don’t have the answer. And so to be able to solve that

[00:08:35] question is essentially solving a cold evolutionary case. And why this is so

[00:08:40] significant, not just because the legal court decisions, but those court decisions in a sense represent a gamble

[00:08:46] because I mean they they hedge their bets in that gamble. They said, “Okay, you’ve got to make testable predictions, but we’re never going to give you any

[00:08:52] money. We’ve got $45 billion annually in research money from the National Institutes of Health. No creationist

[00:08:58] gets to see that to do creationist research. So, we’re going to say here’s the standard, but we’re going to make it really hard for you to meet it, which

[00:09:04] is, you know, that’s that’s a great bet then if you can hedge it that way. The the the risk in all that though is if

[00:09:10] creationists and God’s providence succeed, which I’m arguing that we have,

[00:09:15] discoveries make news because you find something new about the world. And if it’s news on a cold case

[00:09:21] in which a lot of people have had this itch that creationists are coming along and finally scratching and forcing

[00:09:27] people to sit up and pay attention to things they wouldn’t ordinarily pay attention to from creationists. How are you going to stop that if you if

[00:09:34] you put all your eggs in that basket? Go make predictions. Oh, we did. And it’s in this area that you’ve not had an

[00:09:40] answer and now people who wouldn’t have anything to do with us are sitting up and listening. Now you’ve just started

[00:09:45] momentum that is going to be difficult to stop. I don’t know how the evolutionist can do it. uh when when the

[00:09:51] ball gets rolling that direction. And that’s what I’m arguing is going on with this book. It’s it’s not just, hey, I’ve

[00:09:56] got answers personally and for other people who’ve never had these answers, but it’s also something the evolutionists haven’t been able to do.

[00:10:03] And I’ve seen that on YouTube. So, when we’ve done these videos, we get lots of views. That’s not some sort of pat me on

[00:10:08] the back as much as we’ve kind of had a bit of an experiment going of what what actually gets the most attention. Like,

[00:10:14] okay, people are responding. And then when I ask for responses, I get people explicitly saying things like, “I don’t

[00:10:19] like that Bible stuff, but I think you’re on to something.” So, it’s expanding the camp and reaching into places I think we’ve not ordinarily been

[00:10:26] able to get into, and that’s what makes me very excited about it from an apologetic perspective. Absolutely. I love it. I love it. It’s a

[00:10:33] completely different angle. Um, so to I’ve got a few questions here about what

[00:10:38] you’re saying. basically um you know it’s kind of a a giant fog the history

[00:10:44] of the Native American people especially as far as it pertains to evolutionary claims. Um but you’re you’re arguing

[00:10:51] that through the study of genetics um some of that fog is being dispersed and

[00:10:56] you’re able to identify things that we haven’t been able to identify in the past. But h how does genetics start to

[00:11:03] name names? um how does the study of genetics and then so I’ve got a two-part

[00:11:09] question here. The other one is is um you know there there is that claim from evolutionists and from atheists that hey

[00:11:15] you’re not doing real science unless you’re making a prediction and then your prediction is coming true based on your

[00:11:21] you know your hypothesis. And so what is the prediction that you have made uh

[00:11:27] that you’re that through your research is uh becoming accurate that that is coming true um as opposed to what the

[00:11:34] evolutionists um would have anticipated if evolution were true. Um so that’s kind of a

[00:11:41] two-part question there, but um genetically how does genetics provide names and more of those details? And

[00:11:47] then what are the the predictions between evolutionists versus creationists as it pertains to Native Americans?

[00:11:53] The names answer is there there’s two levels to it. So in one sense

[00:11:58] so if if you were to read if we were to read the evolutionary literature on archaeological sites and raise the

[00:12:05] question okay we’ve got an archaeological site Cahokia in St. Louis biggest earthwork mound anywhere I think

[00:12:11] in the Americas. Who built it? You’re not going to find a good answer. And evolutionists have historically been

[00:12:16] very reticent to connect specific archaeological sites to

[00:12:22] nations with names that we haven’t contact. Is it the Lakota Sue? Is it the Delaware? Is it the Illinois? Is it the Padawatami? Is it the Navajo? Is it the

[00:12:28] Apache? You won’t find an answer because it’s been very difficult for the abolitionist

[00:12:33] archaeologically to put national names on archaeological sites. And so I think that’s part of the reason it’s just not

[00:12:39] ever taught in school is it’s a bunch it’s it’s a foreign language. Yeah. Let’s talk about the Mississippian culture. Let’s talk about the woodland.

[00:12:46] Just who? What? What about the Lakota? What about sitting bull? You know, where did he come from? And you won’t find a

[00:12:52] good answer because is this because people aren’t studying the Native American cultures themselves? They’re not going to the people. Do they

[00:12:59] have their own history? Uh that’s just unknown and nobody’s taking the time to, you know, go in depth with certain

[00:13:06] Native American tribes or uh is that just something that they’ve lost also that history? There is a general

[00:13:13] rejection of the Native American history. So they do have them. Many of them are oral. There’s maybe just a

[00:13:19] couple have been written down. Some of them have been written down from oral accounts. For example, early 1900s, late

[00:13:24] 1800s, the US government sends out ethnologists to the nations. And these

[00:13:30] are now basically all freely available as PDFs online. Now copyrights expired. Their government reports booklength

[00:13:35] treatments. And this is what they ate. This is what they uh what houses they lived in. This is their clothing. just

[00:13:41] very broad descriptions and sometimes it includes and they say they came from the west or maybe it’s a paragraph length.

[00:13:48] It varies depending on the tribe, but these are largely rejected as useful by

[00:13:54] the evolutionary community or in some cases uh rejected as fraudulent or I

[00:13:59] think there’s a general we’re not sure what to make of this if it’s trustworthy because it’s generally not written down.

[00:14:05] And is this by specifically is there a is there a conflict of interest for evolutionists because you said that the

[00:14:10] evolutionists reject it? Um, is is it because it creates a dilemma for their

[00:14:16] theory? I don’t know that I’ve seen many examples of that because the native

[00:14:22] accounts aren’t usually terribly specific in terms of time frames.

[00:14:28] You can find geographic clues often times, but uh I I think a a a hard

[00:14:34] contradiction would be if they were to say, “Hey, we crossed the Bearing Straight 5,000 years ago.” That’s longer

[00:14:41] than I would say, but that would be shorter than the evolutionary timeline because they’d say 15,000 years ago. And

[00:14:46] I don’t think you’ll be find much. And I I should add there are if you go, let’s say, to one of these websites for the

[00:14:52] reservation or nation, some of them will say, you know, we’ve been here for 15,000 years. I’m like,

[00:14:59] no, I don’t think your elders said 15,000 years ago. I think you said we’ve always been here. And then the elders adopted from the evolutionary framework

[00:15:05] the 15,000year time stamp. So I I think it’s a general in archaeology and anthropology we’ve got criteria for and

[00:15:13] someone asked this question just last week. I was at the center for Indian ministries and there was a guy who was an anthropology student. He was a

[00:15:18] Caucasian guy but listened in on the meeting and said you know why do people accept let’s say Egyptian accounts which

[00:15:26] we know they deliberately falsified and they erased people from their history because you know this lady is a woman we can’t have that or let’s not talk about

[00:15:32] the Israelites that sort of thing. Why why do they accept that but not Native Americans? And I said, I think the answer is in part because it’s written

[00:15:40] the Egyptians and it’s written and dated to that time period basically. Whereas,

[00:15:45] you know, now these accounts from the ethnologists, they’re long after the fact in the sense of if they’re describing ancestral migrations, well,

[00:15:52] they’re not writing them down until the 1800s after European contact and so forth. So, I think there’s a bit of an

[00:15:58] academic, well, it doesn’t meet the same standards and they don’t really

[00:16:03] because a lot of it’s a lot of it’s oral, too. Is that correct? Yes. Yeah. Yes. Because it’s oral. And then I think

[00:16:08] they would also say, “Well, how can we verify this archaeologically?” And so what I’ve been able to do uh in in some

[00:16:15] cases is I can connect DNA to specific peoples. So I’ve got a couple examples

[00:16:21] in the book like I I can say, “Hey, this is the uh Eskimo Alute branch.” That’s a

[00:16:26] group of language families. It includes many like you pick up in Alaska and so forth, people in Greenland, indigenous

[00:16:32] people in Greenland. And another example would be hey this is the Aabaskan branch which include the Apache and the Navajo

[00:16:37] because I can say based on anyway there’s mathematical correlations census studies and so forth that can line up

[00:16:42] with branches. One of the most important ones was identifying a particular DNA based family tree branch with the algic

[00:16:50] or algangquan peoples which would include uh peoples like the black feet uh Illinois Arapjo Cheyenne uh groan

[00:16:59] podi so on and that partic and with this branch then I can identify hey this

[00:17:04] branch came to the Americas at this date so there’s there’s elements there of I can connect DNA to peoples and then that

[00:17:12] gives me some sort of time frame name that I can start lining up with archaeology and say, “Oh, well, hey, there’s this correlation.” I can now

[00:17:17] say, uh, these people were here at this point and and connect national names

[00:17:24] step by step slowly to specific archaeological points. But really, the the biggest advance was the snowball

[00:17:31] effect, I would say, of DNA where it’s not necessarily DNA directly that’s giving the names, but the DNA uh is

[00:17:38] identified with the people group and then it lines up with an indigenous history. So what I’ve been able to do that the evolutionists probably can

[00:17:44] never do because they have a much longer time frame and they’re not going to see this connection is uh I I found a

[00:17:50] connection between DNA and a specific indigenous account. It’s the red record or wallam of the Delaware which was so

[00:17:57] the the provenence or how it was came to be in in in western hands was a Kuckian

[00:18:03] guy named Constantine Rafinesk in the early 1800s says I I got this written document and I think these were symbols

[00:18:11] and pneummonics to the spoken account and then he wrote down transcribed I think the spoken Delaware account then

[00:18:17] did a translation of it and for the next two centuries it was a matter of curiosity and professional I think

[00:18:22] academ IC interest uh treated as hm wonder what this tells tells about

[00:18:28] history and and the main body of the document is a series of sichchums or you

[00:18:33] know chieftains leaders that sort of thing that that’s their term for him and it’s it’s almost poetic like so and so

[00:18:39] was the sichum history man was the sichum written records he began that’s from a 1993 translation by David

[00:18:44] McCutchen so and so was a sichchum you know much bloodshed happened it just some sort of significant event during

[00:18:50] his rule and you uh I guess estimate a general time scale

[00:18:57] for that document from some internal clues some of the later sichums in the record and I sorry so I should add there’s about 96 sichchums they describe

[00:19:04] a crossing of the bearing straight into the new world and then through these 96 sichchums a very long migration down the

[00:19:10] western coast of Canada across the great plains across the Mississippi into the sort of Ohio Indiana Kentucky area

[00:19:17] eventually to the Atlantic Ocean and so later on because that’s that’s close to European In contact time there’s about

[00:19:23] three data points that you can kind of triangulate to say for example so one is there’s a certain sichchum and they say

[00:19:30] we you know we we finally reached the sun’s salt sea or basically we got to the Atlantic and the Delaware wom

[00:19:36] records say that happened in 1396 apparently then there’s a few sichums

[00:19:41] later white people appeared and one of the translators of this red record Dave

[00:19:46] McCutchen says you know I think that’s it was one of the concistadors Verzano who who sailed up the Atlantic coast of

[00:19:53] the United States in 1524. And then the red record closes with so and so was the Sichchum. Uh white people in ships

[00:20:01] appeared. Who are they? Which he says I think this is the coming of the Dutch in 1620 because by that point the Delaware

[00:20:07] in the New Jersey New York area and from those points then you can say okay we’ve

[00:20:12] got this this guy was for this state this guy for this state this guy for this state. We know how many sichchums transpired between these dates. Now we

[00:20:19] can estimate and I think it’s like 7 to 14 years per Sichchum. So then once you got the average you say okay there’s 96

[00:20:25] sichchum. So then you have a range of dates for when they first crossed into the Americas. Wow that’s amazing. Um and this is is

[00:20:32] this research that really you’re on the cutting edge of is this really um nobody

[00:20:37] else is doing this kind of research. Correct. and the mainstream community. So that document, if you look it up

[00:20:43] online, Wikipedia, if you go to the Delaware Nation of Oklahoma, they’ll say, “We have rejected that account as a

[00:20:48] fraud because there was a 1995 thesis by David uh Oriker who studied it and said,

[00:20:54] “No, I think Rafenesque invented this out of whole cloth.” Now, I have his thesis. I’ve read some of the points.

[00:21:00] Some of it I thought, “How did the thesis committee pass this?” Because one of his points was, “Well, the document is not written in modern Delaware.” So I

[00:21:07] I thought what that would seem to be a testament to its authenticity because I mean exactly King language has changed.

[00:21:13] King James Bible is not modern English because English has changed. So you would expect if it’s an authentic

[00:21:19] document for it not to be written in modern Delaware because again it’s early on in the migration that they say we began the written records writing down

[00:21:25] what we’re doing. So I don’t have answers for all of those points but from that inferred time frame and then so

[00:21:33] that’s one data point. like I think the range is like 200 to 900 AD is when they

[00:21:38] would arrive under those assumptions. So, so just to clarify um cuz you

[00:21:43] mentioned 1396 as uh one of the important dates that’s

[00:21:48] a lot more recent than just in my I don’t know my mind. Um is is am I right

[00:21:55] in assuming that that is more recent than typically people have uh thought?

[00:22:02] I think the default assumption in the evolutionary community and then somewhat adopted by native communities

[00:22:08] but also I’ve learned a matter of religious doctrine is number one so the religious doctrine element I learned

[00:22:14] from let’s say the Lakota is no we’ve always been here we were created or we emerged from wind cave in the Dakota

[00:22:20] area that great plains and we’ve always been here I thought it was naively ignorantly thought it was just sort of a

[00:22:26] convenient political conclusion but no it’s actually it’s it’s part of their worldview we’ve always been here. And

[00:22:33] for many nations, they’ll say, you know, this is our home. They’ll kind of rely a little bit on secular archaeology to

[00:22:39] say, well, you know, archaeology connects our ancestors to New Jersey for the past 10,000 years. So that’s that’s

[00:22:47] part of it. And so idea, you know, this concept of a late date like 1396, especially for an arrival on the

[00:22:54] Atlantic, would be, I think, foreign to many people’s ears because we just that’s just not normally part of the

[00:22:59] discussion. definitely not normally part of the evolutionary discussion because again they’ve got this stretch out over 15,000 years and so they’re lots of

[00:23:05] wiggle room and and of course you know if you want to not offend me

[00:23:11] sensibilities it’s it’s easier to say they’ve always been here again I I should be more accurate and say the

[00:23:16] evolutionists are very reticent again connect specific communities to specific sites and so they would say well here’s

[00:23:22] the map of America at contact and then we kind of put that aside and we talk about archaeology and we’re not quite

[00:23:28] sure how the archaeology connects to this map at contact, but there’s there’s some sort of argument you can make.

[00:23:34] So, so how are um the Native Americans that you’re that are reading your your

[00:23:40] book um looking at your research um how are they responding to the evidence that

[00:23:45] you’re giving because yours is very evidence-based. It’s very uh factually oriented and science-based. Uh how are

[00:23:51] they responding? I’d say there’s there’s different levels of response for for the

[00:23:56] videos we’ve done and when I ask for people to contact me if they want to participate and we’ve got contacts now 30 plus nations the majority of people

[00:24:03] would be professing Christians who are of Native American ancestry but I also had people again hey I don’t

[00:24:08] like that Bible stuff but I think you’re on to something and I’d say the highest level invitation was from the Lakota

[00:24:14] Treaty Council conference they had watched one of the videos the executive director contacted me we had some Zoom calls uh at at that they invited me then

[00:24:22] to speak on DNA indigenous histories. The meeting itself 3 days in December Rapid City 2023 was very traditional uh

[00:24:31] in some senses from the front a lot of speakers anti-colonial anti-caucasian anti-Christian to the point where it’s

[00:24:38] you know me sitting there as an open creationist and and believer you know what am I doing here why do they invite

[00:24:43] me and I think the answer is because no one else is offering them these possibilities of connecting science and

[00:24:50] validating their own migration accounts and the Lakota have a fairly extensive one it’s It’s in the ethnological

[00:24:55] literature, but also I’ve been in touch with a tribal historian and he says basically the same thing of a migration

[00:25:00] I think from Canada and then the first date is basically the late AD 800s by

[00:25:07] Washington DC. Then there’s a migration westward across the probably Indiana,

[00:25:12] Kentucky, Ohio area up into Wisconsin. And then by the late 1300s, I think a subgroup, the Oage or ancestors of the

[00:25:19] Oage, Omaha, Ponka, others are separating at the mouth of the Ohio on the Mississippi and and

[00:25:25] spreading into the Great Plains area. But all that I think we will likely see validation of with DNA. And the reason,

[00:25:32] one of the main reasons I think so is because this red record that O Striker says is fraudulent. Well, it actually

[00:25:38] agrees with the branch and the timing that I’ve identified as the Algic, which

[00:25:43] is what the Delaware are part of that that language family. I’ve been able to connect their history to DNA and and all

[00:25:48] these pieces are coming together. And then that document because it has this list of sichums, I can connect and

[00:25:54] correlate with archaeological sites because it some of it just falls in place real easily. And the red record

[00:26:00] gives us specific names. Crusher was the sichum and we defeat you. That’s that’s the greatest battle. And the names of

[00:26:06] course are in the Native American style. I mean it’s not the typical Caucasian style Nathaniel Gansson, but it’s very

[00:26:12] descriptive and almost poetic like sitting bull crazy horses, man afraid of his horses. I mean those those are very common practices in 1800s. And I mean

[00:26:20] it’s still practiced. Phil Two Eagle was the name of the guy who invited me. And so the Lakota still practiced that type

[00:26:26] of naming. And apparently this has a long history going back uh centuries at least and the Delaware were practicing

[00:26:33] the same thing. So in that sense now DNA by this snowball or domino effect connects us validates histories that

[00:26:39] have been taken away and then from these histories we can say this is where they were. This is what they said. This is

[00:26:45] who they fought. This is who they’re allied with and this is the name of their hero who accomplished the great

[00:26:51] victory for them and allowed them to continue eastward eventually landing on the Atlantic. Wow. Uh, so it’s almost as if um

[00:26:59] evolutionists have no theory whatsoever in regards to the Native Americans. I

[00:27:05] mean, I don’t even know what they would say as far as, you know, these details. They just don’t have the detail level

[00:27:10] that you’re looking at. Um, and from a Christian perspective, the biblical

[00:27:15] record, the biblical history, we have Noah, then you have the Tower of Babel, and then you have the dispersion around

[00:27:21] the world. Um so did the did the people disperse end up uh if they come across

[00:27:28] that landbridge because uh you agree with secularists in regards to that.

[00:27:33] It’s just the timing is completely different. Is that right? The timing and frequency. So yes, I’d

[00:27:40] say there’s likely a bearing straight land bridge. In secular circles, they’ll talk about questions of was it by boat

[00:27:45] as well. uh for the very first migration. I wouldn’t be surprised if it came from Indonesia because so the

[00:27:50] oldest you have to kind of go to Miso America, Middle America to to see the archaeological evidence. Theme their

[00:27:56] giant sculpted heads they have I mean you can see very clear anatomy where the

[00:28:01] eyes are Asian, you know, Native American looking, but some of the like nose and lips, you think that’s almost

[00:28:07] African. And today in Indonesia, especially where like Irania, where part

[00:28:12] of the island of New Guinea, the Indonesian side of the island where there’s still Melanesians there, you

[00:28:18] know, it kind of spills over into the other islands of Indonesia, Somatra and and Java would be very East Asian

[00:28:24] looking, but where those two cultures meet, you have features today that kind

[00:28:30] of look mech. It could even be there’s an oceanic voyage, which again I’m like, you look at the Polynesians who who made

[00:28:36] these tremendous voyages thousands of miles, I think, across the Pacific to Easter Island to Hawaii. Uh, ancestors

[00:28:43] weren’t dumb. And of course, this is right after the flood when Noah builds a boat. So, people know how to build

[00:28:49] boats. It wouldn’t surprise me if there even was an oceanic trans-pacific voyage for some of the earliest migrations. And I

[00:28:55] would say there’s at least five from the old world into the new at at various time points throughout history. So it’s

[00:29:01] it’s not it’s it’s there’s agreement, yes, probably across the bearing straight because it’s the easiest in

[00:29:06] terms of connecting land masses, but I would say there’s multiple migrations and obviously much closer in to to

[00:29:13] contemporary history than they would say in in in the incomprehensibly distant past 15,000 years ago.

[00:29:20] Um, and so who is the first group that actually settled America? Uh, do you do you have have you come to a conclusion

[00:29:26] about that? I would say there’s four migrations I can see genetically and

[00:29:32] archaeologically goes back even further. So that’s where the fifth comes from. And I guess to to work forward in time

[00:29:38] from the Tower of Babel because everyone’s at Babel until God confuses the languages. You know, Genesis 11:1, the whole earth has one language, one

[00:29:44] speech, which makes sense. It’s it’s family. It’s Noah’s descendants. They’re all talking to each other because they’re all related.

[00:29:50] And then God separates the languages. Then they’re going to migrate. And you do see me. So the the first so the

[00:29:57] cradle of civilization I guess I could say for the Americas is in Mexico makes sense because the climate there is more

[00:30:03] conducive to yearround agriculture which is going to produce a larger population size and accelerate basically

[00:30:09] civilizational advance though historically that’s a whole another topic of there’s been plenty of contact

[00:30:14] between North America and Central America throughout pre-limited history but they’re they’re like 1600 is what

[00:30:20] the secular the mainstream community would say is the date 1600 BC for the

[00:30:25] Mex and the oldest migration I can trace genetically is 1,000 BC. So themes

[00:30:32] disappear archaeologically about 400 BC and it seems they may have been wiped out or just you know they disappeared

[00:30:39] for whatever reason. The happen sometimes where you have groups of people that just disappear from

[00:30:44] history entire civilizations whether through what famine or or uh disease or

[00:30:51] something. Right. Exactly. I I suspect there’s cause and effect because and and and part of what

[00:30:57] this this history of migrations does is it adds new possibilities to understand these sorts of things. So the ch

[00:31:03] disappear and I guess if you think of timelines so the ch are there early but then the Mayans come in if I can get my

[00:31:08] hands right here. Mayans came in about a th00and BC are still thriving but are on

[00:31:14] the Gulf Coast of Mexico. Mayans they they appear archaeologically in the lowlands of Guatemala in the jungles

[00:31:19] about a th000 BC. It fits very nicely with with DNA. This is actually discoveries I just announced in July after the book came out because it’s

[00:31:26] active research in thousand BC that’s right around the time of King David too. Yes. Yes. And I would say in general if

[00:31:32] you look at the history of the Americas it it’s intriguing when you put think of it from a biblical perspective because

[00:31:37] and I’ll just give some secular dates. I would I think these need to be adjusted but the point here is in the relative timing. If you look at a secular

[00:31:44] archaeological textbook let’s say where are the cradles of civilization in the world and when do they begin? the the

[00:31:51] textbooks would say the the first three basically Middle East along Tigris and

[00:31:56] Euphrates of Sumer then of course Egypt nearby in the Nile and the Manowans and Cree it’s kind of one circle there in

[00:32:01] the Middle East Mediterranean area they’re all about 3,3100 BC next cradle

[00:32:07] of civilization you have to go east into the Indis Valley Pakistan modern Pakistan area and that I think is about

[00:32:12] 2700 BC next when you go even further east Yellow River of China which I think is you know think Beijing area or or

[00:32:19] around there. That’s about 2200 BC, I think. And then even further east, you know, if if Ark lands in the Middle

[00:32:25] East, this kind of makes sense. You know, progress of having to go further away from the Middle East, the ark. And

[00:32:31] then X, of course, last about 1600 BC. And that same sort of relative

[00:32:37] hierarchy persists throughout human history. So what do we call classic European civilization, Greeks and

[00:32:43] Romans, and Romans around the time of Christ. Chinese civilization is around the same time. And the Han dynasty is

[00:32:48] kind of the Roman equivalent for China. The Mayans, I would say, would be the best in terms of its impressive

[00:32:55] sculpture and height of culture and such. The Mayans would be the the best candidate for being sort of the American

[00:33:01] Romans. And theirs is not the time of Christ. Their classic era starts 200

[00:33:07] years after Christ, 250 years after Christ. So there’s there’s this bit of a delay. And then even within the Americas, there’s sort of a hierarchy of

[00:33:14] Miso America seems to be the hub for all the Americas and then elsewhere probably because the climate I mean I’m from

[00:33:21] Wisconsin so we’ve got lots of snow and you got limited growing season stuff happens up here delayed behind basically

[00:33:29] Central America. So the first villages I think you don’t even see until the AD era whereas you’ve had pyramids and and

[00:33:36] big cities and all that that happens in Miso America long before that. Teayoti Wakan 200,000 people and it falls in 600

[00:33:44] AD and again that’s right when the first villages are starting I think in in North America. So there’s this general

[00:33:50] hierarchy of stuff happens first in the old world and then kind of delayed into the new world which I think fits the yes

[00:33:56] we started in the Middle East restarted with no in the Middle East and people spread out from there and the further

[00:34:01] you are from the Middle East the longer it’s going to take to get going and then within the Americas North America is

[00:34:06] kind of a delayed schedule behind Miso America again because I think the climate there which is going to be a

[00:34:12] primary dictating factor or permissive factor in in how far your civilization can go much more conducive there to

[00:34:17] North America Uh and then in terms of genetics there’s there’s no genetics for the earliest

[00:34:23] themes then the Mayans about a th00and BC I can see a a genetic echo of that in

[00:34:29] 100 BC there’s another migration and we can connect these really interestingly to to old world events too which makes it fun but but in terms of the Americas

[00:34:36] Teot Wakan that that greatest city in all the Americas in in the precolian world it begins to its growth

[00:34:42] accelerates right when this other lineage comes over and you can think about power vacuums you there’s there’s so much that that kind begins to unfold

[00:34:48] when you understand this. But the the biggest most impactful migration is the 300s to 600s AD. This is around the same

[00:34:55] time that the Huns and Eurvade Europe and help accelerate the destruction of the Roman Empire, bring it down. And a

[00:35:02] similar thing happens in the Americas where they’re bringing down the Mayas in the centuries that follow it seems. But this is this is the one that seems to

[00:35:08] replace all the male lineages. I think all the warriors get wiped out. This causes a dispersal of Central American

[00:35:14] people. So you have Mayan blood now in North America. You have Teoti Wakan blood in North America uh in the last

[00:35:20] migration and this can all be traced through genetics. Yes. Yes. That’s incredible. You can see population rises and falls.

[00:35:27] That’s that’s a bit more technical but you can see those sorts of things in in DNA. you can see when when these people

[00:35:32] split uh all that all that history lines up and then of course the the most important tool are these indigenous

[00:35:39] histories which again I have confidence now my attitude now is basically I

[00:35:44] assume all of them are true unless I have good evidence otherwise I think the main reason is because I have this

[00:35:49] genetic tool to say yes I’ve been able to validate these and it’s not just I’ve validated a handful I was able to

[00:35:55] validate the most infamous example of rejection so this this document the red record that that mainstream community

[00:36:01] says, “Ah, it’s fraudulent. We’ve convinced the Native Americans themselves to reject.” I’m like, “You got that really, really wrong.” So,

[00:36:08] whatever methods you’re using to do that, you should really reconsider them. And if we got this so badly wrong, how

[00:36:15] many others have we gotten wrong? And and again, this there’s still criteria. And this is all due to this is all due

[00:36:21] to the need to space things out due to uh trying to support evolutionary

[00:36:26] theory. Is that is that where this uh bad data is coming from as the effort to

[00:36:32] try to maintain evolutionary time frames? The the red record in particular, I

[00:36:38] don’t know if it’s it’s it’s so much a proactive we’re going to get rid of it because it contradicts as much as it’s a

[00:36:44] again I I don’t know. It’s it’s really odd how this thesis got passed because I think some of the logic is is hokey. But

[00:36:52] I think it’s maybe the bigger factor is they’re missing connections because they’ve got the wrong DNA time scale and

[00:36:58] and I should say it’s really an archaeological time scale because if you look at the evolutionary professional

[00:37:04] literature when they do DNA analysis it is secondary to archaeology and it’s

[00:37:09] there there’s even a phrase in print one of the more uh one of the bigger projects funded in the last decade or so

[00:37:15] was the 10,00 genomes project. They had Native Americans that were part of it. And in their methods description in

[00:37:21] print, they said, you know, when we’re analyzing Native American DNA, we we use the 15,000 years ago archaeological time

[00:37:29] stamp as a and the and the quote is it’s a sanity check. Basically, if we do all of our analysis and the Native Americans

[00:37:36] do not line up as originating 15,000 years ago, we must be doing something wrong. So, they’re they’re going to

[00:37:41] anchor all that. And so when you do that and stretch all this out, then you miss these connections that I can see because

[00:37:47] I got the biblical time scale or you know anyone could see if they have the biblical time scale. And and that’s what

[00:37:52] really puts these pieces together. And what what’s also I guess spurred me on even further is the general trajectory

[00:38:00] of migration from the red record fits linguistics. You you can reconstruct a

[00:38:05] hierarchy within this language family fits linguistics. There are mentions in the red record of other people groups.

[00:38:10] we fought so and so and and they’re again descriptive names. One of them is we fought the North Walkers. And I can

[00:38:15] again put a date on it because of genetics. It’s about the early 1200s on the Great Plains. Why does that matter?

[00:38:21] Well, North Walkers, everybody walks, but why north? It’s, you know, have they seen these people before? Well, they describe again coming in, you know, into

[00:38:28] Alaska and at contact you do have Eskimo Elite language family people there, but

[00:38:33] also Atabaskcans, which includes ancestors of the Navo and Apache. Keep that under your hat for a sec because if

[00:38:39] you go to the Meascalero Apache and they have a girls’s puberty ceremony which takes four days in which they recount

[00:38:46] the history of their migrations and they’ve got timestamps and they say we came from the land of the bitter north

[00:38:52] which they still have linguistic relatives up there in Canada, Alaska. We came from up there and we the Apaches

[00:38:58] were the last of four migrations from the north into the south. Three groups preceded us and our migration was the

[00:39:04] the late 1300s. So you start working backwards say okay so before the late 1300s there was the

[00:39:11] third group and before that the second group before that the first group anyway it’s plausible that they have a migration from the north to the south in

[00:39:18] the early 1200s. So seeing some of these cross connections between the indigenous

[00:39:25] histories to me all adds to the confidence that yes this is authentic history. These are not dumb people

[00:39:31] evolutionary partially of all brutes. It’s they’re smart people descendants of Noah who recorded their history and

[00:39:38] these links are emerging. Again, I I feel like the the key initial plank was I have a genetic time scale anchored in

[00:39:45] the biblical time scale and that’s what produced this initial aha moment and then the things have snowballed since

[00:39:51] then and produced lots of connections that have unraveled this playbyplay. That’s incredible. And and then like you

[00:39:57] said and then the linguistics is is one more component that’s all uh coming together. It’s like a gigantic puzzle

[00:40:03] that’s all being put together and more and more pieces are falling into place. Uh that’s amazing. And the big the big

[00:40:10] deal here really is is because what this is doing is validating biblical history. Is that is that the the the key takeaway

[00:40:16] here? Yes. And I I think I didn’t answer a question you had to ask earlier about like what predictions am I making that the evolutionists aren’t? And I would

[00:40:22] say the the general prediction is we should see the record of history in DNA. And the first step in all this was

[00:40:28] actually finding the genetic echo of the post European arrival population

[00:40:34] collapse and recovery which once I saw that boom I knew I was on the right track. That that’s key. Talk a little bit about that. What what

[00:40:39] do you mean by the population collapse after European contact? Yes. And this this is actually the back

[00:40:46] up several steps because before I could even be confident that I was making progress with DNA,

[00:40:53] uh this goes back to about 2017 2018 I was working on the male inherited Y

[00:40:58] chromosome. Didn’t know where the beginning was. didn’t know how time was stamped in the tree because again

[00:41:03] scripture doesn’t say how fast or slow DNA mutates or if there was a burst of DNA activity or DNA change after the

[00:41:10] flood. Anyway, there’s just a lot of open questions, a lot of possibilities. So, I’m trying to test hypotheses and one of the things that I learned from

[00:41:17] graduate school was when working on any sort of project, take what you know, beat it to death till it yields a little

[00:41:22] bit secrets and then you can kind of progress into the unknown realm. So 2015 I moved to Kentucky from uh Dallas went

[00:41:30] from ICR Institute for Creation Research to AIG answers in Genesis and we have a

[00:41:35] town is 20,000 people where I live but it’s got a apparently well funded by the taxpayers local library and Charles

[00:41:41] man’s book 1491 was part of it and again this is I’m still highly ignorant of anything that’s happened so anything I

[00:41:47] can get my hands I’m like oh you know this is this is light bulb moment because I’ve got nothing to go on for what happened in the Americas and so I

[00:41:53] find this book you know 1491 on New Revelations, the Americas before Columbus. I’m like, “This looks really interesting. Able to finally answer

[00:42:00] questions I’ve had all my life.” So, so I’m I’m 35, 36, 37 years old, trying to

[00:42:06] find just the most basic of clues to what happened here. And he describes three major topics. He’s like, “This is

[00:42:11] not a play-by-play. This this is a vast topic changing quickly.” He talked about the first Americans, which of course is

[00:42:17] from an evolutionary perspective because he’s a he’s a mainstream science writer. How do the Native Americans interact with their environment? And then

[00:42:23] relevant to my purposes how many people were here because this has changed even in mainstream science from 50 years ago.

[00:42:29] So that the the half a century ago view would have been and he I mean his story of of this book is is personal where

[00:42:36] he’s like you know I learned this 1950s era concept of just a handful of people here hugging the trees kumbaya all that

[00:42:42] all that sort of thing. He’s like, “But then I, you know, I became a professional writer, attended scientific conferences, and I knew from these

[00:42:48] conferences that all this was being dramatically rewritten, and then I got married, had kids or one child, and they

[00:42:54] go off to school, he’s like, and learn the same outdated 1970s era stuff that I was.” He’s like, “Someone needs to write a book on this.” So that’s the

[00:43:01] backstory. And he describes then a lot of this debate and there’s still this heavy debate on exactly how many people were here. But a good middle of the road

[00:43:06] estimate would be about 50 to 60 million people in 1491 which may not sound like much because you know 8 billion people

[00:43:13] in the globe today but just for reference then in Europe for example in 1400 and just for historical context and

[00:43:20] reference 1300s in Europe is the black death and you’ll hear numbers like 25%

[00:43:26] to 33% of the population dies but some have even gone up to 50%. So

[00:43:32] Europe gets whacked and the lowest point then after the black death would be the 1400 and there’s

[00:43:38] about 60 million people. So within that century 60 million people in America

[00:43:44] in Europe. Oh in Europe sorry in Europe in Europe. So there’s your benchmark. And in the Americas then all the Americas 50 to 60 million people. That’s

[00:43:51] north, central, and south. But still that’s a lot different than just small roving bands of tree huggers. This is

[00:43:57] massive amounts of people that build Yes. great cities, the concisadors with Cortez when they arrive in 1520, 1521

[00:44:03] going into Montazumasa, you know, tennitlon, the capital of the Aztecs described in glowing terms like this is

[00:44:09] this is like the glory of Spain because they they just there’s massive civilization here and this is I mean

[00:44:14] Charles man wrote his book in 2005 and there’s just you just kind of thumb

[00:44:21] through some of the science journals. This is still being updated as we’ve got new technology to do it. So some of that

[00:44:26] debate relates to the concisador records. So specifically they’re going back to the and I have to keep reminding

[00:44:33] myself of context because Latin America has about 100 more years of history from European contact than North America.

[00:44:39] Pilgrim 1620, Cortez 1521. So that they have Catholic churches they’re building

[00:44:45] with uh baptism records and death records. And one of the discoveries basically that started changing

[00:44:51] mainstream views was if you look at the earliest records, there’s a whole lot more deaths and burials than baptisms,

[00:44:57] births. So you kind of plot this out in a graph, you’re like, “Wow, there was a you kind of extrapolate backwards in

[00:45:03] time to estimate or if you go forwards in time, what you see is however many people were here, 80 to 90% of them die

[00:45:09] out because of disease and other factors. That’s part of it. But of course, one of the more recent uh tools

[00:45:15] has been lidar, acronym for basically flying low passes over the jungle with I

[00:45:20] think laser pulses or radar beams. And you can basically strip away the foliage and oh well there’s a whole lot more

[00:45:26] Mayan ruins or we’ve we discover lost cities in the jungle and and even even soil archaeology and in the Amazon for

[00:45:33] example and and man talks about this in his book. It’s the terrapa I think are the black earths they’re finding

[00:45:39] evidence of oh wait a minute this whole Amazon was thickly settled with people and again the concisador accounts I

[00:45:45] think it’s Oriana who’s one of the first guys down the Amazon early 1500s he’s like there’s

[00:45:51] densely settled v villages on either side constantly having to not get shot at with arrows avoiding all this

[00:45:56] centuries later of course after Brazil is settled on the coast and they move inland it’s empty which again speaks to

[00:46:03] the massive die off of people that happens But again archaeology is saying yes we find all these dark soils

[00:46:08] evidence of pottery human habitation uh and the statistic I think from man’s book in 2005 is an estimate of the uh I

[00:46:19] guess the plant life in the Amazon is that you know it’s not this uninhabited wilderness at least 12% looks like

[00:46:24] cultivated orchard and and the backstory to that is Amazon soils are terrible they’re bad for agriculture but the

[00:46:30] people there were clever and they used the wild plants deliberately cultiv ated them to sustain their civilization. So,

[00:46:37] lots of people here, lots of people die off. And so, that’s what’s fresh in my head then as I’m trying to figure out

[00:46:43] the family tree for humanity. Don’t know where it starts. Don’t know how time is stamped. I’m like, well, I know there’s been a population collapse in the

[00:46:49] Americas because that’s that’s that’s where the field is going. There’s got to be a genetic smoking gun of this.

[00:46:56] Actually worked it out. I mean, I feel like any researcher knows when you got a question that’s bothering you, it it

[00:47:02] doesn’t leave you. So, you’re in bed thinking about it. you’re home after work thinking about it and that’s what’s happening. And so I’m working out on our

[00:47:07] kitchen whiteboard, the grocery list whiteboard, trying to diagram what would a population collapse look like in DNA

[00:47:13] if this happens. It’s going to be in family trees. Finally figure it out. See the smoking gun. Once you see it, you

[00:47:19] can’t unsee it. It’s basically well anyway, you know, if populations grow,

[00:47:24] branches on a tree multiply. You know, me and my wife, two people, we’ve got four kids. We’re undergoing population

[00:47:29] doubling right now. Twice as many in in the next generation than this one. Twice as much work, too. Yeah, exactly. And so, if you’re going

[00:47:36] to get 50 to 60 million people, there must have been significant population growth before Europeans arrived. And so,

[00:47:42] there would be lots of branching events in the family tree of the Americas. If we had a time machine, go back in time. How do the family trees look? They would

[00:47:48] probably be multiplying, lots of branching, branching, branching to get there. And then after Europeans arrive

[00:47:54] and there’s 80 to 90% of the branches gone, and then 10% survive, some of them

[00:48:00] recover. And again, just put numbers on this. The Navajo reservation, their website listed, I think in the late

[00:48:06] 1800s about 9,000 10,000 people. The 2010 US census, so a little over a

[00:48:13] century later, lists about 400,000 Navajos. So they they’ve been they have begun to recover thankfully some of the

[00:48:19] numbers that they lost because of population die- off. So anyway, if we take DNA from the survivors, which has

[00:48:26] been done, that’s part of the, for example, the 10,00 genomes project. Those are living people. These would be

[00:48:32] the descendants of the survivors of that population collapse. What and and we can reconstruct a family tree. What do their

[00:48:37] branches look like? And again, if there’s growth branches multiply, but if there’s a collapse, what should happen?

[00:48:43] And and really, you kind of have to mentally picture this, but before Columbus, there’s all these branches and ultimately all of us connect. Let me add

[00:48:50] one more point here just to help us visualize this. So, uh, and this comes just from basic biology of human

[00:48:56] reproduction, not the birds and the bees as much as we all have two parents. I have two parents because we’re humans. We’re we’re we reproduce sexually, not

[00:49:02] asexually like bacteria. I can’t just spit off a copy of myself, push a button type thing. I have to there have to be

[00:49:08] two people. And so my parents have two parents because they’re human. I have four grandparents, eight great

[00:49:13] grandparents, 16 great great. So the numbers double every generation. And you can go back a thousand years. You just

[00:49:20] run the math. And you and I each of us individually are in theory going to have

[00:49:25] more ancestors than our people than than our people alive in the globe today. It’s this the concept the term I think

[00:49:30] is genealological collapse or genological expansion is really the first step. It’s there’s there’s this mathematical contradiction just because

[00:49:37] we’re human and I say okay two two parents four grandparents 8 16 32 64 120

[00:49:43] it it explodes where you have trillions of ancestors in theory. It it’s a

[00:49:48] mathematical impossibility. And so I’m I’m telling you that because the solution to that gets us back to Native

[00:49:54] Americans. H how do I reduce the number of my ancestors to make it actually biologically plausible? I can’t have

[00:50:00] trillions of ancestors and 81,000 because there weren’t trillions of people alive on planet Earth. You know, there’s there’s 8 billion people now.

[00:50:07] Just just 600 years ago, there was only 350 million. How do you resolve it? You can’t kill off my ancestors because if

[00:50:14] you know, if you kill off my great grandma, then one of my ancestors doesn’t exist and then I don’t exist. So, how do you solve a mathematical

[00:50:21] contradiction? You reduce the number of branches by connecting them. So, my

[00:50:26] mom’s side and my dad’s side must connect in the last 1,000 years so that

[00:50:32] I don’t have trillions of ancestors 10,000 years ago. You have you make the branches come together. That’s how you

[00:50:38] reduce the number. So, just to explain it again from from from the beginning, I’ve given numbers. So, you know, two

[00:50:44] parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents. You can re represent those numbers by branches on a family

[00:50:49] tree. You know, I connect back to two parents and then there’s two more four four branches, eight branches. How do

[00:50:55] you reduce those branches? Because the tree just kind of does this. Yeah. Yeah. How do you bring it back together? It’s by connecting them. You reduce the

[00:51:01] branches by connecting them in the recent past. And that’s true. By when you say by connecting them, what

[00:51:07] does that look like practically speaking? Like what do you when you say connecting them, you mean

[00:51:13] that? cuz I can see how if you go back to Noah and his wife and his kids, it’s the same situation just farther back in

[00:51:20] time. Um, so what is that? You spread out and then you it kind of does this and then

[00:51:27] it must come back together. So my mom and dad must be at least 20th cousins or 15th cousins or

[00:51:35] something. We may not have the records for it, but the math says those branches that are going, you know, spreading out

[00:51:40] and multiplying, they have to come back together quickly or the number of branches exceeds the number of people

[00:51:45] alive on planet Earth. So to get that number back down to something reasonable, you have to start connecting

[00:51:50] them. And so there’s going to be a lot of the significance of this conclusion is that it’s relevant to

[00:51:57] the time frames in the Bible and biblical history. That’s one element. But for Native Americans then if you think about the

[00:52:02] pre-colian world their branches will have connected. So the so people are multiplying the population is growing

[00:52:08] but if you look backwards in time again because none of us can go back infinity past and and just just a thousand years

[00:52:15] and boom you got too many ancestors. Everyone in the Americas is going to be related in let’s say a thousand year

[00:52:20] time frame. So just to just to visualize the family trees ju let’s say 80 1200

[00:52:27] there’s a lot of branches that start multiplying or if you look backwards in time from 1491 to 1200 branches come

[00:52:33] together so there’s relatives and so if you’ve got just to think of it in simple

[00:52:38] terms uh eight fingers and the thumb so I come to the just to keep the percentages easy I

[00:52:45] come to 1491 and there’s 10 branches on the tree representative of the whole Americas those branches would have come

[00:52:51] together in the recent past before 1491. But there’s there’s 10 alive in 1491.

[00:52:58] All but one of them disappeared. You know, 90% disappear, 10% survives, and

[00:53:04] those leave descendants in the present. I get DNA from people in the present. What were their branches look like? Make

[00:53:10] a long story short. It gets again, it’s a technical explanation. I don’t have visuals to do it. But basically, you

[00:53:16] don’t see those ancestral connections. the people who died don’t leave

[00:53:21] descendants and so whatever connections they had on an actual family tree disappear genetically and so what I’m

[00:53:27] getting at and and without even needing to necessarily understand it the smoking gun of a population collapse is

[00:53:33] flatlining so of course in the medical field if you’re on a heart monitor you know it does this does this and if you’re dead it flat lines the genetic

[00:53:39] smoking gun the family tree smoking gun of a population collapse is flatlining and that’s what you see over and over

[00:53:46] and over again in the branches of the Native American family trees flatlining and I should add it lines up right with

[00:53:53] Columbus’s arrival if you have the young earth time scale. So these flat lines that once you see them in fact I’m going

[00:54:00] to and is that and what is the significance of that as far as it pertains to Europeans

[00:54:06] uh relationship to Native Americans? Uh not so much the European relationship as much as how do I know I’m on the

[00:54:12] right track and and where do I find the key genetic evidence that I’m that I’m going in the right direction. That was

[00:54:17] that was actually the key plank in figuring out the whole tree. I’m like, “Okay, here’s real history stamped on

[00:54:23] the tree and it only appears I’m going to find a diagram here. See if I can show it on the screen.” Uh, it only

[00:54:28] appears if you have the young earth time scale. So, give me a sec here to find it because uh

[00:54:35] it it’s one of those that got me really excited and uh you again once you here we go. So, here’s my here’s my this is

[00:54:42] from traced actually. So there’s my uh what I was trying to describe earlier about the branches of the family tree. I

[00:54:48] don’t know if it shows up on the screen, but I’ve got Yeah, it does. Yeah, I see it very clearly. Yeah. And then, you know, if you take DNA from the survivors, it’s just this flat line.

[00:54:55] You lose all those ancestral connections because they don’t leave descendants. It’s it’s this long flat line. And then if you look at actual DNA data from

[00:55:02] Native Americans, here’s this here’s a diagram. This is not from the thousand genomes, but another publicly available

[00:55:07] project. Um you see all these flat lines and then late branching. Anyway, those

[00:55:13] correlations, this sort of history that you can see and you can diagram it that way, all that disappears if you have the

[00:55:20] evolutionary time scale because they would say, “Oh, what I’m calling Columbus, they’re calling 3000 BC, 6,000

[00:55:27] years ago. They have methods to kind of try to transform it to make it show some

[00:55:32] sort of population collapse, but the crystal clear boom, there it is, only comes when you have the young earth time

[00:55:38] scale and and be able to figure out that history.” So that’s what I’m saying. I’m I’m predicting we see the history of civilization in DNA. That was the first

[00:55:45] key plank for me to say yes, we’re on the right track and then the rest of the tree fell into place and I could figure

[00:55:51] out all that and then eventually find Noah in the tree. But it was the Native American question that got us going in

[00:55:58] the right direction. First clear stamp of the history of civilization. And that’s what also gave me confidence to say, you know what, now that I, you

[00:56:04] know, take what you know, beat it to to to death until it yields all of its secrets. Now, I’m confident that now

[00:56:09] that we’ve beat to death what we know, the population collapse, I can be confident looking backwards in time into the unknown because what do we know

[00:56:17] about the pre-European Americas? Well, DNA could provide some clues. How do we know we can trust DNA? How do I know I

[00:56:22] figured out how time is stamped on it, where the beginning is, all that? Because the postcolian part worked out

[00:56:28] perfectly. So now I can say, yeah, DNA says there was a split in the American

[00:56:34] branches. It splits off from the Asian branches 400 AD. And I know that’s true

[00:56:39] because again the lighter part of the tree and all that and that that’s what’s really helped snow.

[00:56:44] You got another tool in your toolbox basically to be able to analyze history. Uh that’s incredible. Um has anybody

[00:56:50] ever done like um has answers in Genesis or anybody I’m sure if if not somebody’s working on it. uh the dynamic um like a

[00:56:59] illustrated or a uh animated uh tool to show the dispersion of the populations

[00:57:06] like you’re detailing uh from the time of Noah forward around the world.

[00:57:13] I haven’t done it yet because it’s so complicated. So the 2022 book traced attempts to take DNA and do that

[00:57:19] globally. But there’s so much. Yeah, we’re all so intermixed now after 4,000

[00:57:24] years of migration, rape, pillage, slaughter, conquest that it would be a very complicated animation. That’s why I

[00:57:30] haven’t done it yet. But and some of some of it we’re limited. So to to bring

[00:57:35] in a whole another angle here or another element what we have for so

[00:57:40] so because DNA records, population rises and falls. It’s a dynamic marker.

[00:57:46] Yeah, that that’s point number one. Point number two is we know apart from DNA just from historical records,

[00:57:51] archaeology that the shape of human population growth is kind of this hockey stick where in the last 600 years, boom,

[00:57:57] you know, it’s increased 20fold. Yeah, I’ve heard that there was only around 500,000 people or so around the

[00:58:03] time of Christ. Is that accurate? Is that my I’m I’m trying to think. I think that’s too low for time of Christ. My

[00:58:09] reference point, my last benchmark, earliest benchmark would be about 50 million in the time of King

[00:58:15] David. About a th000 BC 50 million. It could be 500,000 in certain regions.

[00:58:21] How do evolutionists deal with the the fact that the population was so low and

[00:58:27] they say we’ve been here for 200,000 years? Um, you know, where are all the people as far as that’s concerned? How

[00:58:33] do they how do they respond to that? I’m guessing they would explain it by saying, “Well, we’re just not highly

[00:58:39] evolved, so we don’t have, you know, we didn’t invent agriculture. We hadn’t figured out a way to multiply ourselves very quickly.” And so, you

[00:58:45] know, survival of the fittest, we were the lucky ones. We just happened to keep our small population going. Thank

[00:58:51] natural selection. You can’t say thank God or whatever, but it is this. But there’s no evidence for that claim.

[00:58:56] It’s just uh it’s just a wishful thinking. Or what what what would you what would you say to that? They would

[00:59:03] say if you look at our human DNA through the lens of evolution, the evolutionary time scale, it almost demands low

[00:59:09] population sizes for a long time and then of course boom, there’s an explosion late in history. They don’t have an explanation for it in terms of

[00:59:16] cause and effect. I don’t think they might try to tie it to climate or whatever, but again, all of evolution is is just dumb luck essentially that it’s

[00:59:23] a roll of the genetic dice and hopefully the dice you’ve been rolled fit the environment at the time and there’s no

[00:59:30] reason we should be here anyways. There’s no purpose. It just it just happened that our ancestors survived and

[00:59:35] reproduced and and that’s why we’re here. So yeah, in in that sense, explanation is is a kind of a relative

[00:59:42] term in evolution because it almost demands no explanation because there

[00:59:48] isn’t rhyme or reason or purpose. It’s just that’s how it turned out is ultimately what evolution boils down to.

[00:59:55] Um so um you know this is incredible stuff that you’re documenting. It’s

[01:00:00] amazing and I think it’s going to be a blessing to a lot of people. Um what is happening next? What are the things that

[01:00:06] uh the mysteries that still haven’t been solved that you’re pursuing? Uh something that popped into my head um is

[01:00:12] this an issue for more than just Native Americans? Meaning is this an issue for example for the Chinese when they go

[01:00:19] back in their history? Do they have well documentmented um uh historical records

[01:00:25] regarding you know when when the first people came to China or is this an issue that’s uh with more than just Native

[01:00:32] Americans? Is there other people groups around the world that are dealing with these same issues?

[01:00:38] I think there’s there’s a lot of layers to the answers to that question. One is and something I just got excited looking at. So, let me back up a sec though. So,

[01:00:45] May of this year published this book, they had names in which so if you read the book, you’ll find there’s only two

[01:00:50] migrations I talk about because I didn’t have all I had was the male inherited Y chromosome DNA. I hadn’t solved because

[01:00:56] it’s confounded me for several years. the female inherited mitochondrial DNA. Well, I just made a breakthrough that

[01:01:01] got announced published in in July and that’s where I was able to say five migrations because I’ve been able to trace some of that and and that that

[01:01:09] missing those missing lineages. So again, the oldest I could go back and what I say in the book is 300’s AD.

[01:01:14] There’s of course archaeology before then. There’s long Mayan archaeology before then with written records and

[01:01:20] stone that that preceded and and that’s kind of what had been vexing me for a long time. How do you explain the

[01:01:26] disappearance of these previous peoples and to be able to find a genetic signature? Okay, yes, not all of them

[01:01:31] disappeared. We’ve got this female inherited DNA kind of kind of a big relief for me because it’d be one of the stronger arguments against my view. It’s

[01:01:39] like, well, your view requires that a lot of people disappear. Well, I found them now in mitochondrial DNA. So,

[01:01:45] that’s one element. It does give us then really interesting hypotheses to pursue.

[01:01:51] for example then so one thing I noticed to me or or or one thing that eventually occurred was okay we got migrations 100

[01:01:57] BC th000 BC it’s coming from the same sort of northeast Asian east Asian

[01:02:02] region could there be cultural overlap and so one of the things I just last couple

[01:02:08] weeks I’ve been looking into is what about art styles what about the earliest because if you look at there’s something

[01:02:13] there I think I can’t put my finger on it yet or quantitatively give you an answer but if you look at the like the

[01:02:18] the Chinese bronze age is about that time the second millennium BC and Shang

[01:02:25] dynasty is the first well Shia dynasty might be before then but Shang dynasty falls about 10:45 BC at the hands of the

[01:02:32] Zhao dynasty and the Zhao are then rulers for the next several hundred years anyway that’s the time of the

[01:02:38] bronzes and if you look at the styles it’s extremely ornate I mean just like

[01:02:43] every square inch of the bronze vessel has something carved on it or or molded or whatever else if you look at Mayan

[01:02:49] art that’s one of the things that’s that’s I also confounded me is how do you make sense of misoamerican art? It’s

[01:02:55] just so different and almost excessively gody and ornate. I’m like wait a minute

[01:03:01] there might be an artistic style which again if they came from there and they left at the time of the Chinese bronzes

[01:03:07] and and I’m not saying they’re identical styles. is clear identifiable Mayan style Chinese style but I’m like there’s

[01:03:13] something my brain connects here and I think there may be something to chase

[01:03:18] but yes that’s that’s that’s the question to ask do the Chinese records talk about migrations to the Americas

[01:03:25] and in fact let me I mentioned that we can connect old world events to new ones so I don’t know if I mentioned the Huns

[01:03:32] as being the relatives of the 300s to 600s era migration well the 100s BC migration that in the Americas gives

[01:03:38] rise I think to teot wan this city. What happens in China? What what could be a

[01:03:43] causitive event to send someone going into the Americas? The Chinese

[01:03:48] civilization of course is geographically not that far from India. And of course,

[01:03:54] India has a long history. They got a cradle of civilization indis valley. You got the Gupta dynasty. You got you got lots of history then

[01:04:01] geographically neighbors. Genetically they’re pretty isolated. And

[01:04:08] the reason I think is and what I’m getting at is geography and then come back to this question of the Americas. Geographically, China has of course the

[01:04:14] Pacific on one side in the east. They’ve got jungles and and I think mountainous regions in the south separating it from

[01:04:19] Southeast Asia. And of course between them and India is the Tibetan plateau, the Gobi Desert. You got Mount um Mount

[01:04:27] Everest of course tallest mountain in the world separating them. It that’s what I think keeps the civilizations

[01:04:32] apart. What I’m getting at is the only geographic vulnerable vulnerability for

[01:04:37] the Chinese for thousands of years is the north. And of course, that’s why they build the Great Wall is to keep

[01:04:43] those barbarians, they call them, keep the barbarians out. And there’s a long history of invasions from the north and

[01:04:49] specific peoples. And this time in history, then 100s BC for the I think a couple centuries prior, it’s the Shong

[01:04:55] new typically speller spelled like um x i o n g n u. They’re fairly famous or

[01:05:03] infamous in Chinese history because they actually conquered and ruled parts of China for the centuries prior and it’s

[01:05:09] the one 100s BC where China finally pushes them back out. Go away. Finally

[01:05:15] reconquer their lands and push the Shong new out and that I think is I think it’s

[01:05:21] likely the Shong new losers who end up coming to the Americas and they’re again are marshall people successful people.

[01:05:27] They I think come to the Americas and build Teot Wakan. Uh, so I don’t know if the Chinese records I I don’t know if

[01:05:33] it’d be the Chinese specifically who end up in the Americas. I think it’s their northern harassers who they kind of kick

[01:05:41] out and and and historically again the Chinese people are sedentary. They’ve got agriculture and the peoples of

[01:05:47] Central Asia including into Mongolia are historically pastoral peoples because the lands of Central Asia which include

[01:05:52] the you know former Soviet republics, Kazakhstan, Tajjikiststan, Usbekistan, all that that’s not great agricultural

[01:05:59] land. They were sheep hurders, you know, livestock peoples, which means they’re always on the move. And to me, they make

[01:06:05] the best candidates then for being people who just keep moving into the Americas when they say, “Let’s go find,

[01:06:11] you know, better fortunes elsewhere.” But yes, that that that would be a very interesting question. Are there any

[01:06:18] records, any any explicit mentions of migrations into the Americas? And my guess is we’re there’s still clues

[01:06:25] waiting to be uncovered. There are implications for the old world specifically for China from this

[01:06:31] research, but the principles of this research and the deeper history that’s going to be globally applicable and I

[01:06:36] think we’re going to find a lot more connections globally historically than than even we know right now.

[01:06:41] Yeah, that’s incredible. Uh my guest today has been Nathaniel Jensen. Uh his

[01:06:46] recent book is They Had Names. Um and if you um you can check it out. You can get

[01:06:52] it on AIG uh answers in Genesis. um and anywhere else too. Tracing the history

[01:06:58] of the North American indigenous people. Super interesting book. Lots of diagrams in it, too. If you like pictures and you

[01:07:05] like that kind of research, really really helpful in that regard. And um boy, I’m looking forward to seeing what

[01:07:12] else you’re going to come up with. Do you think um uh I have a few real super we’re we’re out of time, but I have

[01:07:18] super quick questions. Do you think that AI is going to um help to advance this research that you’re doing?

[01:07:25] I’m torn on that because AI is trained on existing data. So, can AI

[01:07:32] make scientific discoveries? That’s where I’m very curious because I’m like,

[01:07:38] I understand you can use it to take, let’s say, an existing DNA data set and say, you know, crunch all these. We already use computers to crunch DNA data

[01:07:45] because I can’t physically run my finger in some sort of reasonable amount of time over the three billion letters of the human genome.

[01:07:51] Use a computer. Can AI pull out patterns? My guess is yes. Can they connect cons concepts and say, “Oh, this

[01:07:57] is the answer.” I don’t know that computers will do that because it it’s it’s not

[01:08:04] because it’s such fresh research. Yeah. Yeah. It’s not thinking. Another question I have too is um you

[01:08:09] know, Mormons have said for this is really off topic, but Mormons have said forever that the uh Native Americans are

[01:08:15] related to the Jews. Um uh has anybody ever said anything and in regards to

[01:08:20] your research as it pertains to Mormonism or do you think this is going to affect them at all? I would say this is very on topic cuz

[01:08:26] the sheer number of Mormons who comment on the videos and contact me directly and

[01:08:31] I I haven’t said that much explicitly just because up until July all I had was

[01:08:36] genetic data going back to the 300s AD. I’m like I don’t know how the earlier stuff is going to turn out and Mormon

[01:08:42] doctrine is a 600s BC migration. the lost tribes of Israel, you know, of course, coming into the Americas. I’m

[01:08:48] like, what if that actually turns out to be true? Not that the Mormonism is true, as much as I just better be careful what I say because I don’t have the data yet.

[01:08:55] I now have the mitochondrial data and I don’t see any such migration at that time frame. Again, it’s 100s BC and a

[01:09:00] th00and BC and there’s no connection whatsoever that I see to any sort of Middle Eastern group. It’s all again coming out of East

[01:09:07] Asia, which that was another relief, too, because someone had one of the potential criticisms of my work was,

[01:09:12] you’re saying all these migrations, but you know, the Mayans today look like they’re Mayan art from 2,000 years ago.

[01:09:20] What’s going on? And one theoretical answer that I eventually came to was, well, maybe maybe it’s multipleations

[01:09:26] from the same place, which would produce consistent, you know, anatomical appearances. And then once we finally

[01:09:32] found these genetic connections with mitochondrial DNA, okay, yes, that was that that is the explanation. They’re all just repeatedly coming from the same

[01:09:38] central Asian, north Asian place, which is why they look so similar and why modern Mayans look like the ancient Mayans and, you know, DNA didn’t

[01:09:44] disappear. So, so all that’s true. Um, I’ve got one more question for you, too.

[01:09:50] Um and this is again kind of loosely associated but the

[01:09:56] Jews right now are um you know wanting to uh have Levites who serve in the

[01:10:04] temple that you know many of the Orthodox Jews are hoping they can build and everybody is anticipating this. Um,

[01:10:12] are they actually able to look at DNA and um trace the lineage back to the

[01:10:19] original Levites? Is that something that’s actually scientifically possible or um I I I was just curious about that

[01:10:26] um what your thoughts were. The mainstream answer is yes, but no. They’ve got a the fairly famous I don’t

[01:10:33] know infamous paper saying we’ve gotten Y chromosome the lineage of the ironic line. But if you look at the details, they’re saying actually it can’t be the

[01:10:39] biblical account because the ironic line is actually four people or whatever else. There’s there’s a claim of yes, we

[01:10:45] found the Jewish lineage, but in its details, it’s a pretty severe contradiction to what the Bible actually

[01:10:51] says. And of course, they’re using the evolutionary time scale. Second answer, and this comes from so this is one of

[01:10:56] the big discoveries from 2022 in the in the traced book looking at global human history because we could find Noah

[01:11:02] because we found the genetic echo of Genesis 10 which of course is Shem down through um Eber and one of his sons

[01:11:09] Paleleg in Genesis 11 then takes you from Shem through Paleleg down to Abraham and of course Isaac, Jacob. we

[01:11:16] have a very explicit generation by generation genealogy from Noah to Jacob

[01:11:23] and the sons of Israel. So in theory we should be able to find it and the answer is yes. We found the genetic echo of Genesis 10 and specifically an Abrahamic

[01:11:30] line. I’m I I think in the book I talk as if it’s the Jewish line. I’ve had

[01:11:36] many contacts with Middle Eastern Muslims surprisingly North African Middle Eastern Muslims. even spoke to one of the members of the royal family

[01:11:41] of a Gulf Coast country and I realized well Ishmael is also a generation of

[01:11:47] Abraham and even though we’ve we’ve got pretty precise tools with DNA two of the

[01:11:52] studies have like a one generation ambiguity and so I’m not quite sure yet because again they’re all in the same

[01:11:58] place too Middle East Ishmael and Isaac their descendants I have an Abrahamic

[01:12:03] line I don’t yet know if it’s Isaac or Ishmael but the young earthbased researching and this is this is

[01:12:09] dependent upon on the young earth timeline. We have positively identified that. In theory, we should be able to find then maybe the rest of the tribes

[01:12:16] if this is indeed an Isaac line and Jacob. But the mainstream community does not recognize it because they have the

[01:12:22] evolutionary time scale. But it it does raise up a whole host of interesting questions and there’s a lot of data left

[01:12:29] to uncover in the Middle East directly relevant to that question. That is absolutely amazing. Um well,

[01:12:35] thanks a lot uh Dr. Jensen. Um, I’m loving everything you’re doing and uh it’s just validating the Bible. Um, and

[01:12:43] it’s the hard evidence that’s validating the historical record that’s in in the Bible. U we know it’s trustworthy and um

[01:12:51] it seems like God is is allowing more and more people to see the fact that uh it’s a trustworthy it it is the word of

[01:12:57] God. So, thank you for what you’re doing. Thanks for the chance to talk about it. Absolutely. Again, uh if you want to

[01:13:03] check out Nathaniel Jensen and his work, you can visit answers in Genesis. Um their website has tons of resources. My

[01:13:10] website’s educateforlife.org. We’ve got a ton of fantastic interviews on there

[01:13:15] that are a huge blessing and encouragement. And uh any way we can uh serve you to help you in your walk with

[01:13:21] the Lord and grow in your faith and trust in the word of God, uh we’d love to help you. So, God bless you and look

[01:13:27] forward to seeing you next time. How can you live in San Diego and miss out on enjoying the water? Fast Lane

[01:13:34] Kaying sells popular Hobiecat kayaks that you pedal, not paddle. That means your hands are left free for fishing and

[01:13:41] fun. Just throw these on your roof rack. They’re light and they’re easy to use and maintain. Just rinse them off, try

[01:13:48] one free on a demo ride. For 36 years, Ron and Debbie Lane have served San

[01:13:53] Diego with fun, familyfriendly water sports of all kinds. Learn more. fastlanes.com

[01:13:59] 619-222766. When you need tires or service, count on

[01:14:05] Conover Tires, Wheels, and Service in Oceanside for a full range of affordable options in all the brands you trust. See

[01:14:11] their great customer reviews and special offers online. Hours Tuesday through Friday 7:30 to 5:30 and Saturdays 7:30

[01:14:18] to 5. Call Dan and his team at 760-439-1631.

[01:14:24] Conover tires, wheels, and service, 2405 Oceanside Boulevard in Oceanside, 7604391631.

[01:14:32] Educate for Life helps you build your life on the rock. LG Equipment helps builders build on good soil. Luke

[01:14:38] Gibson’s team at LG Equipment is your local source for grading, demolition, hauling, and more. Learn about their

[01:14:43] bulk water services from trucks to tankers to towers at rentwatertowwer.com.

[01:14:49] Get your questions answered. Call LG Equipment at 619-988924.

[01:14:55] Learn more at lgeequipment.com. 619-988924