The Noose again begins to tighten on the critics...

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

Oh, and by the way, how did all here miss this:

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/j ... 54.web.pdf

And this:

http://www.tracegenetics.com/Malhi%20an ... 202002.pdf

And this:

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/j ... .text.html

And you may (or you may not) be interested in Virginia Morrels article in Science (Science 24 April 1998:
Vol. 280. no. 5363, p. 520) available here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/s ... 0/5363/520

Here is an excerpt:

Anthropologists have long assumed that the first Americans, who crossed into North America by way of the Bering Strait, were originally of Asian stock. But recently they have been puzzled by surprising features on a handful of ancient American skeletons, including the controversial one known as Kennewick Man--features that resemble those of Europeans rather than Asians (Science, 10 April 1998, p. 190). Now a new genetic study may link Native Americans and people of Europe and the Middle East, offering tantalizing support to a controversial theory that a band of people who originally lived in Europe or Asia Minor were among the continent's first settlers.

The new data, from a genetic marker appropriately called Lineage X, suggest a "definite--if ancient--link between Eurasians and Native Americans," says Theodore Schurr, a molecular anthropologist from Emory University in Atlanta, who presented the findings earlier this month at the annual meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists in Salt Lake City....

The team, led by Emory researchers Michael Brown and Douglas Wallace, and including Antonio Torroni from the University of Rome and Hans-Jurgen Bandelt from the University of Hamburg in Germany, was searching for the source population of a puzzling marker known as X. This marker is found at low frequencies throughout modern Native Americans and has also turned up in the remains of ancient Americans. Identified as a unique suite of genetic variations, X is found on the DNA in the cellular organelle called the mitochondrion, which is inherited only from the mother.

Researchers had already identified four common genetic variants, called haplogroups A, B, C, and D, in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of living Native Americans (Science, 4 October 1996, p. 31). These haplogroups turned up in various Asian populations, lending genetic support for the leading theory that Native Americans descended primarily from these peoples. But researchers also found a handful of other less common variants, one of which was later identified as X.

Haplogroup X was different. It was spotted by Torroni in a small number of European populations. So the Emory group set out to explore the marker's source. They analyzed blood samples from Native American, European, and Asian populations and reviewed published studies. "We fully expected to find it in Asia," like the other four Native American markers, says Brown.

To their surprise, however, haplogroup X was only confirmed in the genes of a smattering of living people in Europe and Asia Minor, including Italians, Finns, and certain Israelis. The team's review of published mtDNA sequences suggests that it may also be in Turks, Bulgarians, and Spaniards. But Brown's search has yet to find haplogroup X in any Asian population. "It's not in Tibet, Mongolia, Southeast Asia, or Northeast Asia," Schurr told the meeting. "The only time you pick it up is when you move west into Eurasia



You seem also to have missed this while concentrating on that last bowl...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent. ... wus19.html

And this:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/n37813gr642p75g4/


And this:

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/j ... 90321.html

And:

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/j ... 72.web.pdf (notice the relative frequency of haplotype 4 here).

The point of all this is not that it proves the Book of Mormon true. It does do two things, however. It shows that the Book of Mormon's claims are perfectly plausible, and that mtDNA studies are in their infancy regarding the full story of Amerindian origins. Dude, Seth, Tom Murphy, or anyone else are way over their heads claiming the demise of the Book of Mormon based upon this kind of evidence.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

Blixa wrote:
Coggins7 wrote: Jews (we know they were here, as they left a stone carving mentioning the fact)


In Search Of? I hope this isn't Bat Creek, again...



The authenticity of the Bat Creek inscription was confirmed long ago.

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/batcrk.html
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

Ummm... Loran? Quit while you're still breathing, because you haven't been ahead for a very long time. You're embarrassing the Mormons here. Really. Sit down and chill. You're over your head and watching you disintegrate is enough to gag a maggot.

The Dude is just about the only poster here who does understand all the ramifications of DNA. If I recall correctly, he's the only one who has a PhD in genetics or whatever. He could probably write whatever book you're reading.



There seem to be plenty of geneticists out there who would call his dogmatism into question (not on the general origin of the Amerindians, but only that it is the only origin and that some haplotypes are quite mysterious at present and unexplained) and Michael Whiting, or any other LDS of similar academic background, could stop him cold in his tracks for the simple reason, as here pointed out, that the question is wide open, the science is in its infancy, the science isn't at present capable of answering the question, and the science is so complex and full of uncertainties, tentativeness, and ambiguity that he could quite convincingly argue his case and that would be perfectly respectable. So cold any Mormon geneticist and that would be perfectly respectable and in accordance with the present science as well.

Dude is apparently committed to a pre 1990s view of Amerindian origins, which he needs to be to hold onto his Asian only dogma of Indian origins. The cutting edge isn't moving in that direction, however. Nor does the Book of Mormon in any way require one to distance oneself from the Bering Straight theory of the general origins of Amerindian populations. That theory does, however, still have some serous empirical problems in that the evidence for the actual crossing isn't robust at all. But it may be true. Who cares? There are more than enough unknowns to monkey wrench the very kind of cock sure certainty Dude is promoting here on the issue.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

Is that how you feel when I identify your circular arguments?



But you haven't done that, which doesn't surprise me given your philosophical crash and burn on the Beckwith threads, in which you seemed incapable of grasping a fairly simple logical inference.


Yes, my PhD doesn't matter. It just shows I am one of satan's minions, wise in my own eyes and in the eyes of the world. Blah, blah, blah.

Waste of time as usual. Please go away.


Who said it didn't matter. All I ever said was that you have rarely, if ever, comported yourself literarily or intellectually here as if you had one.

I'm not going away, the Church isn't going away, and the truth isn't going away.

Frightening, isn't it?
Last edited by Dr. Sunstoned on Wed Jul 04, 2007 1:15 am, edited 3 times in total.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

oh, Cogs. You cannot be serious.

http://www.ramtops.co.uk/bat2.html

by the way, McCulloch, whom FARMs refers to as having verified Bat Creek stone, is an economist criticizing the work of those who are actually trained in the field, AND misrepresents the statements of other experts, such as McCarter:

We will also note that McCulloch (1993a: 5-6) himself presents the views of McCarter in such a way that they do not accurately reflect McCarter's published statements about the stone. McCarter (1993: 55) has, in fact, stated that:
"It is probably not a case of the coincidental similarity of random scratches to ancient letters, since, as noted above, the similarity extends to an intelligible sequence of five letters —. too much for coincidence."

but goes on to say that:
"It seems probable that we are dealing here not with a coincidental similarity but with a fraud," and, "In any case, the Bat Creek stone has no place in the inventory of Hebrew inscriptions from the time of the First Jewish Revolt against Rome." It is quite obvious that McCarter no longer "reserves final judgment on the inscription" (McCulloch (1993a: 5).
The stone, quite simply, is a fake.


Cog, you are the perfect target for FARMs tactics. You swallow what they tell you, hook, line and sinker.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_The Dude
_Emeritus
Posts: 2976
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:16 am

Post by _The Dude »

Coggins7 wrote:The point of all this is not that it proves the Book of Mormon true. It does do two things, however. It shows that the Book of Mormon's claims are perfectly plausible, and that mtDNA studies are in their infancy regarding the full story of Amerindian origins. Dude, Seth, Tom Murphy, or anyone else are way over their heads claiming the demise of the Book of Mormon based upon this kind of evidence.


mtDNA studies and Y-chromosome studies most certainly confirm what many people, even LDS scientists, already knew -- that the Book of Mormon is not a true story about Native American origins as Joseph Smith and his contemporaries once believed.

Now you say the Book of Mormon's claims are perfectly plausible? What are those claims? That's the only thing to debate -- not DNA. All of your articles and links are beside the point, including the first one in your OP. If Book of Mormon claims are limited genetic claims, where a small group of Lehite colonists came to the Americas and literally disappeared then of course DNA can't disprove it. It could have happened, just like the Vikings built a colony on Vinland (except, of course, we have evidence for that one). However, if they are claims that predict a measurable impact, well... here's my signature line from over at MAD:

""There's no way that negative evidence on [DNA] hurts the Book of Mormon whatsoever once you believe in a limited geography. If you believe in a global geography, you're basically done, toasted, game over." --BYU archaeologist John Clark"

I've never claimed the demise of the Book of Mormon based on DNA evidence. Only traditional views are dead. This is where critics (like Murphy) often overstate the DNA case. If you don't believe the traditional view anyway, then all of your agitating is for nothing but a demonstration that you misunderstand your own position. Which is kinda' funny.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
_silentkid
_Emeritus
Posts: 1606
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:50 pm

Post by _silentkid »

The Dude wrote:If Book of Mormon claims are limited genetic claims, where a small group of Lehite colonists came to the Americas and literally disappeared then of course DNA can't disprove it.


This was the position I remember Dr. Whiting giving when I was at BYU pursuing my master's degree. I wondered why an adherent of parsimony would offer up an ad hoc hypothesis such as this. I guess if you're of the mind that the Book of Mormon is a literal history no matter what, you have to come up with ways to protect that claim, even if they go against traditional Mormon thought.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Not only are traditional views about the text dead, but any fair meaning of the text itself is also dead. Nephi and his descendants are described as powerful kings and leaders, whose influence extended over many polities.

Yet there is no way that happened in mesoamerica, not for the least reason that, had it happened, the Nephite cities would have been the very cities establishing the culture and traditions others followed for many centuries.

Since that obviously didn't happen, Book of Mormon apologist must distort what the text itself says. In "saving" the Book of Mormon, they have also rendered it meaningless.

One could reasonably argue, for example, that the Jesus visitation was really just a mystical apparition of an ancestor to a powerless king over a tiny polity, using the current Book of Mormon technique.

Read my essay to see why the Book of Mormon can't mean what any reasonable person would think it meant:

http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/wiki/ind ... _and_Power

http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/wiki/ind ... /Holy_Lord
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Coggins7
_Emeritus
Posts: 3679
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am

Post by _Coggins7 »

beastie wrote:oh, Cogs. You cannot be serious.

http://www.ramtops.co.uk/bat2.html

by the way, McCulloch, whom FARMs refers to as having verified Bat Creek stone, is an economist criticizing the work of those who are actually trained in the field, AND misrepresents the statements of other experts, such as McCarter:

We will also note that McCulloch (1993a: 5-6) himself presents the views of McCarter in such a way that they do not accurately reflect McCarter's published statements about the stone. McCarter (1993: 55) has, in fact, stated that:
"It is probably not a case of the coincidental similarity of random scratches to ancient letters, since, as noted above, the similarity extends to an intelligible sequence of five letters —. too much for coincidence."

but goes on to say that:
"It seems probable that we are dealing here not with a coincidental similarity but with a fraud," and, "In any case, the Bat Creek stone has no place in the inventory of Hebrew inscriptions from the time of the First Jewish Revolt against Rome." It is quite obvious that McCarter no longer "reserves final judgment on the inscription" (McCulloch (1993a: 5).
The stone, quite simply, is a fake.


Cog, you are the perfect target for FARMs tactics. You swallow what they tell you, hook, line and sinker.



Keep up the smug pretense of possessing greater intelligence or educational background than me Beastie, it only further exposes you for what you are: a patronizing intellectual snob on a fishing expedition to destroy the Church grasping at whatever thread you can in the attempt.

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/AmerAntiq.pdf

What Beastie leaves out here is that there isn't any empirical evidene that the inscriptions are not authentic. The augument of his authors are completely circumstantial. The

The authors don't prove the stone a fake, only that it could be. Carbon 14 seems to be against them, as all the organic materials are of ancient date. What we have here of course, is to staunch establishment scholars totally committed to a strict fundamentalist Darwinian view of the origin of human culture using a credentialist argument against evidence they cannot conclusively refute empirically. They could be right, but they may well be dead wrong. Pitting Gorden against Cross? What good does that do? Both were equally qualified to translate the inscriptions.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.


- Thomas S. Monson
_Loquacious Lurker
_Emeritus
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 12:49 am

Post by _Loquacious Lurker »

Coggins7 wrote:You have Celts, Vikings, Africans, Chinese, other Caucasians of various types, Jews (we know they were here, as they left a stone carving mentioning the fact) and any other number of possible groups.


I would very much like to know what evidence you are relying upon when you speak of a Celtic visit to the New World.
Post Reply