Native American and Children of Israel Fiery Flying Serpents

[_bomgeography]

In the above quote you call me a racist and sick for quoting research papers. What's funny is your statements are false scientifically proven by genetics.

I said that this garbage from you is sick and racist and it is. Now let's look at how accurately you are quoting those research papers.

“In that case, as it has been proposed, haplogroup X was brought to America by the eastward migration of an ancestral white population, of which no trace has so far been found in the mtDNA gene pool of modern Siberian/eastern Asian population”
(The Presence of Mitochondrial Haplogroup X in Altaians from South Siberia Am. J. Hum. Genet. 69:237–241, 2001)

You have misquoted the paper David McKane. Here is what it actually says:

"If this is the case, then it is possible that this mtDNA was brought to Beringia/America by the eastward migration of an ancestral Caucasian population, of which no trace has so far been found in the mtDNA gene pool of modern Siberian/eastern Asian populations."

Why did you do this? Why did you misquote and add something that wasn't there? What you have done is not only dishonest, it hints at your racist beliefs.

Except the facts tapir.

I do accept the facts including the timelines that you claim are seriously flawed. Let's review what you have done. You use known hoax artifacts, you misrepresent authentic ones and you misrepresent DNA. In a nutshell, you are fabricating claims of evidence. On top of that you fabricate things I didn't say and now you have fabricated something that the scientists did not say. You have also resorted to calling me a liar.[/quote]

Actually your wrong again this is the quote from the CORRECT article

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1226041/

"In that case, as it has been proposed, haplogroup X was brought to America by the eastward migration of an ancestral white population, of which no trace has so far been found in the mtDNA gene pool of modern Siberian/eastern Asian populations (Brown et al. 1998)."

sorry but your batting 0 for 3

[_Lemmie]

David McKane, this is at a minimum the third time you have tried this nonsensical argument on this forum, so no point in responding when tapirrider has done it better, several times!

[large bolding added by me to emphasize the main arguments relevant here.]

On September 17, bomgeography posted

Tapir it's science that states that a founding Native American Dna marker is Caucasian.

“In that case, as it has been proposed, haplogroup X was brought to America by the eastward migration of an ancestral white population, of which no trace has so far been found in the mtDNA gene pool of modern Siberian/eastern Asian population”
(The Presence of Mitochondrial Haplogroup X in Altaians from South Siberia
Am. J. Hum. Genet. 69:237–241, 2001)
“To date, haplogroup X has not been unambiguously identified in Asia, raising the possibility that some Native American founders were of Caucasian ancestry.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar … 9707616292
“Overall, the sequence data and phylogenetic analysis suggest that the Native American and the European haplogroup X mtDNAs share a common maternal ancestor”
<snip>

bomgeography, I addressed this matter of your use of the word Caucasian beginning on August 1, 2016. I addressed it directly to you, David McKane.

Here it is again:

https://mormonbandwagon.com/dave/x2aj/

tapirrider August 1, 2016
Please stop putting that ridiculous label of Caucasian onto some of the most beautiful people in the world who need to be seen and understood for who they really are. Stop robbing American Indian’s contributions to the world by trying to claim that their ancestors were Caucasians. Their real ancestors deserve full credit, but your fantasy history doesn’t grant that to them. Its time for me to end my communication with you because quite honestly, your twists and distortions of science, archaeology and American Indian cultures makes my head hurt. If you come to a point where you want to live in the real world, shoot me an email.

David McKane August 2, 2016
Tapir
Its scientist saying that Native American Haplo group x is Caucasian you need to take that up with geneticist not me.

tapirrider August 2, 2016
David, I’m taking it up with you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKB8hXYod2w

tapirrider August 4, 2016
David, your use of the word Caucasian is outdated and racist. Even worse, the context you use it in is that ancient white people in America accomplished the greatest things but were destroyed by non-Caucasians. That theme is downright racist, scientifically false and morally condemnable.

The LDS church is making efforts to water down and remove the racism of skin color. White now means pure, not skin color as explained in the LDS essays and even in official curriculum materials. But here comes Dave, parading out Caucasian and claiming that haplogroup x is a genetic marker for it, using it to identify white as a genetic distinctiveness as evidence for proof of the Book of Mormon. This garbage from Dave is sick and racist. And like all others who do this kind of thing, he resorts to the most extreme pseudo claims such as ancient giants mixing with people, use of known hoax artifacts and the concept that white is superior. There really is no place for this in the 21st century and most importantly, when addressing matters of American Indians. This wouldn’t stand for one minute if it was about Blacks, but when it comes to American Indians, one of the realities of racism against them is that things like this are still considered acceptable by the ignorant and uninformed and Dave just keeps right on doing it.

Here are the sources Dave uses that refer to Haplogroup x as Caucasian:

This article is from 1997 and mostly references older 1970s studies that use the word Caucasian, although one other in the 1990s is also referenced
mtDNA and Y Chromosome-Specific Polymorphisms in Modern Ojibwa: Implications about the Origin of Their Gene Pool
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... 1-0268.pdf

Dave quotes from this one, but it does not use the word Caucasian, although some footnote sources refer to articles from the 1970s that do
The Presence of Mitochondrial Haplogroup X in Altaians from South Siberia
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... 69p237.pdf

Dave quotes from this one, which does use the word Caucasian, dated from 1998
mtDNA Haplogroup X: An Ancient Link between Europe/Western Asia and North America?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9707616292

All of the above articles using the word Caucasian are in fact in a different context that Dave’s use of it. The scientists are not claiming migrations to the Americas during timelines of the Bible or Book of Mormon, they are acknowledging the radiocarbon dating and molecular clock measurements dating back to the Pleistocene. This makes Dave’s use of it in the context of recent migrations even more racist.

It is also important to realize that Dr. Chatters identified Kennewick man as Caucosoid because of the skull shape, and he argued that Kennewick man was not ancestral to American Indians. But Dr. Chatters changed his mind after studying an even more ancient skull in Mexico, and this was before the final, conclusive DNA studies of Kennewick man that directly ties him to living American Indians.

Here is some further reading on why the use of the word Caucasian is inappropriate:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/ ... 5DHQbgrLIU
“While the older classical physical anthropology terms like “Negroid” and “Caucasoid” fell into disuse after 1960, as you’d expect, “Caucasian” went through a renaissance in the 1990s.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/sunda ... .html?_r=0

http://www.straight.com/blogra/526526/f ... -caucasian

Dave, I’m taking this up with you because society has already taken it up with scientists and it is no longer considered appropriate and is not found in credible, current publications. You are the one doing it here and I’m trying to inform and educate you on why this is wrong. Deflecting it back to older publications from scientists who no longer do this is not going to get you out of the hot seat.
______________________________________________________________________________________

David, you turned right around and repeated it to me again, attempting to justify your offensivness, within 47 days after you had been informed of my position. Considering that you have repeated this Caucasian nonsense to me even after our previous correspondence, and in the same post where you presented me with a link to whites who pretend to be Cherokee, I can only assume to worst with you. I can't say what I would really would like to say in this forum.

[_bomgeography]

Tapir can't accept the scientific research proving that native Americans have caucasian blood and also supports the historical record of the Book of Mormon

[_Lemmie]

Tapir can't accept the scientific research proving that native Americans have caucasian blood and also supports the historical record of the Book of Mormon

McKane, your racist nonsense is wrong and your attacks on tapirrider are becoming increasingly offensive.

articles using the word Caucasian are in fact in a different context that Dave’s use of it. The scientists are not claiming migrations to the Americas during timelines of the Bible or Book of Mormon, they are acknowledging the radiocarbon dating and molecular clock measurements dating back to the Pleistocene. This makes Dave’s use of it in the context of recent migrations even more racist.

There is no scientific research that supports a historical Book of Mormon.

[_bomgeography]

Tapir can't accept the scientific research proving that native Americans have caucasian blood and also supports the historical record of the Book of Mormon

McKane, your racist nonsense is wrong and your attacks on tapirrider are becoming increasingly offensive.

articles using the word Caucasian are in fact in a different context that Dave’s use of it. The scientists are not claiming migrations to the Americas during timelines of the Bible or Book of Mormon, they are acknowledging the radiocarbon dating and molecular clock measurements dating back to the Pleistocene. This makes Dave’s use of it in the context of recent migrations even more racist.

There is no scientific research that supports a historical Book of Mormon.

The majority if not all the hopewell research supports the Book of Mormon. So does the DNA.

[_Lemmie]

The majority if not all the hopewell research supports the Book of Mormon. So does the DNA.

Speaking of bad research, fictional stories, resources not fully read and cherry-picked misunderstandings, DarthJ satirizes that stuff so much better than your weak parodies, McKane.

So here is Darth J, everyone, doing it better than anyone else:

The absence of proof of leprechauns is not proof of absence. A careful reading of leprechaun lore will lead one to understand that the original Celts and Irish often were not familiar with things that we take for granted today. Thus the use of "loan words." For example, a person not familiar with Mormon apologetics might use phrases like "grasping at straws," "house of cards," or "trying to unring the bell" even though these words are meant to refer to what we familiarly call "Mormon apologetics."

Similarly, "pot of gold at the end of the rainbow" does not necessarily mean a "pot" of "gold" at the "end" of a "rainbow."

Another reason many people jump to conclusions about the alleged non-existence of leprechauns is that leprechauns represented only a small fraction of the native people of Ireland in a relatively small geographic area. The leprechauns likely adopted the native culture already present in Ireland, so that it may be difficult to detect the leprechaun heritage among the things we usually associate with people from the Emerald Isle---like red hair, bad tempers, fistfights, habitual drunkenness, and the Potato Famine.

U2, a well-known Irish rock band, also shows many parallels between certain of their lyrics and things that are small, lucky, or have riches---as, for example, their song "Silver and Gold", which has clear parallels to the gold that leprechauns were said to possess.

While the lack of leprechaun DNA has been touted by critics as "proof" that leprechauns did not exist, we must be careful in interpreting the data. Leprechauns likely interbred with the much larger native Irish population, thus diluting the traces of their DNA that one would expect to find if the leprechaun population had been much larger and dominant. Genetic drift and genetic bottleneck also likely masked many traces of leprechaun DNA. I don't know why that would be, but this sounds authoritative and most people will be impressed by scientific-sounding terms without realizing that I'm just trying to sound smart to distract from my arguing from ignorance.

In regard to leprechaun being among the ancestors of the Irish, another compelling parallel is the common phrase, "the luck of the Irish." Leprechauns were reputed to bring good luck, and it is striking that a trait that was once associate with leprechauns has come to be applied to the Irish in general.

In summary, the critics have been far too quick to dismiss the so-called "lack of evidence of leprechauns." Strong cultural parallels and the possibility of DNA being diluted among the larger Irish population suggest that the debate is far from over.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=30431&start=231

[_bomgeography]

The majority if not all the hopewell research supports the Book of Mormon. So does the DNA.

Speaking of bad research, fictional stories, resources not fully read and cherry-picked misunderstandings, DarthJ satirizes that stuff so much better than your weak parodies, McKane.

So here is Darth J, everyone, doing it better than anyone else:

The absence of proof of leprechauns is not proof of absence. A careful reading of leprechaun lore will lead one to understand that the original Celts and Irish often were not familiar with things that we take for granted today. Thus the use of "loan words." For example, a person not familiar with Mormon apologetics might use phrases like "grasping at straws," "house of cards," or "trying to unring the bell" even though these words are meant to refer to what we familiarly call "Mormon apologetics."

Similarly, "pot of gold at the end of the rainbow" does not necessarily mean a "pot" of "gold" at the "end" of a "rainbow."

Another reason many people jump to conclusions about the alleged non-existence of leprechauns is that leprechauns represented only a small fraction of the native people of Ireland in a relatively small geographic area. The leprechauns likely adopted the native culture already present in Ireland, so that it may be difficult to detect the leprechaun heritage among the things we usually associate with people from the Emerald Isle---like red hair, bad tempers, fistfights, habitual drunkenness, and the Potato Famine.

U2, a well-known Irish rock band, also shows many parallels between certain of their lyrics and things that are small, lucky, or have riches---as, for example, their song "Silver and Gold", which has clear parallels to the gold that leprechauns were said to possess.

While the lack of leprechaun DNA has been touted by critics as "proof" that leprechauns did not exist, we must be careful in interpreting the data. Leprechauns likely interbred with the much larger native Irish population, thus diluting the traces of their DNA that one would expect to find if the leprechaun population had been much larger and dominant. Genetic drift and genetic bottleneck also likely masked many traces of leprechaun DNA. I don't know why that would be, but this sounds authoritative and most people will be impressed by scientific-sounding terms without realizing that I'm just trying to sound smart to distract from my arguing from ignorance.

In regard to leprechaun being among the ancestors of the Irish, another compelling parallel is the common phrase, "the luck of the Irish." Leprechauns were reputed to bring good luck, and it is striking that a trait that was once associate with leprechauns has come to be applied to the Irish in general.

In summary, the critics have been far too quick to dismiss the so-called "lack of evidence of leprechauns." Strong cultural parallels and the possibility of DNA being diluted among the larger Irish population suggest that the debate is far from over.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=30431&start=231

Hopewell artifacts (none are fake tapir ) their timeline archeological sites manner of burial manner of building forts, many of building earthen walls, their advanced trade and civilzation match the Book of Mormon

[_Lemmie]

Speaking of faked artifacts, the pseudo-science of parallelism and gullible people, Darth J also has something to say:

Small numbers of Vikings came to North America before Columbus. They did not make permanent settlement and stayed for only a short time, yet archaeological evidence has established that there was a tiny Viking presence in the New World before the rest of Europe discovered America.

The Book of Mormon claims that a vast Nephite civilization existed in the Western Hemisphere for a thousand years. The Nephites built cities that lasted for hundreds of years, had the technology for metallurgy and complex warfare, etc. There is no archaeological evidence at all showing this vast, millenial Nephite civilization, while there IS evidence of tiny, temporary encampments by small numbers of Vikings.

In the real world, fantastical claims of fact for which there is no supporting evidence can, logically and reasonably, be said to be untrue. If the Nephite civilization as described in the Book of Mormon ever really existed, something would be somewhere. The fact that even people who believe in the Book of Mormon cannot agree on where it happened (Mexico, other Central American locales, upstate New York, the "heartland," etc.) confirms that what is claimed to be "evidence" for the Book of Mormon is nothing more than hitting a bull's eye by shooting an arrow and then painting a target around where the arrow landed.

[Guest]

Speaking of faked artifacts, the pseudo-science of parallelism and gullible people, Darth J also has something to say:

Small numbers of Vikings came to North America before Columbus. They did not make permanent settlement and stayed for only a short time, yet archaeological evidence has established that there was a tiny Viking presence in the New World before the rest of Europe discovered America.

The Book of Mormon claims that a vast Nephite civilization existed in the Western Hemisphere for a thousand years. The Nephites built cities that lasted for hundreds of years, had the technology for metallurgy and complex warfare, etc. There is no archaeological evidence at all showing this vast, millenial Nephite civilization, while there IS evidence of tiny, temporary encampments by small numbers of Vikings.

In the real world, fantastical claims of fact for which there is no supporting evidence can, logically and reasonably, be said to be untrue. If the Nephite civilization as described in the Book of Mormon ever really existed, something would be somewhere. The fact that even people who believe in the Book of Mormon cannot agree on where it happened (Mexico, other Central American locales, upstate New York, the "heartland," etc.) confirms that what is claimed to be "evidence" for the Book of Mormon is nothing more than hitting a bull's eye by shooting an arrow and then painting a target around where the arrow landed.

Darth j is clueless to the hopewell. Basically all of Book of Mormon criticisms are outdated.

[_tapirrider]

Actually your wrong again this is the quote from the CORRECT article

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1226041/

"In that case, as it has been proposed, haplogroup X was brought to America by the eastward migration of an ancestral white population, of which no trace has so far been found in the mtDNA gene pool of modern Siberian/eastern Asian populations (Brown et al. 1998)."

sorry but your batting 0 for 3

David McKane, I used the link you attached and your quote is not found it that link. It doesn't help to provide a different one now. When you make your claims, you need to provide accurate links and sources. As for that quote, this is exactly what I have been trying to tell you. There was a resurgence of this kind of thing in scientific papers in the 1990s and it is no longer done. You seem to think that it is acceptable in the 21st century because you can find it in older papers. Using it the way you do is in fact racist.