Dna Revisited

[hagoth7]

In the case of DNA and the Lamanites, there is a scientific question/answer that should be (and I believe is) material and non-subjective. Dr. Stewart's position is that Book of Mormon people *could have* been the principal ancestors of the Native Americans. My position, the position of LDS critics, and the position of the majority of LDS apologists (who favor Limited Geography/Genetics Theories) is that BoM people *could NOT have* been the principal ancestors. It seems that nobody, anywhere, is willing to say that Book of Mormon people *were* the principal ancestors. For whatever reason....

....emphasis added....

The Dude,

Well, since there's an exception to every rule,

I'm saying it: "Book of Mormon people were the *principal* ancestors...." i.e. "men like Lehi and Nephi were the *principal* ancestors of Native Americans."

I'm guessing this distinction has been pointed out elsewhere, but:

The 1828 dictionary:

PRIN'CIPAL, a. [L. principalis, from princeps.]

1. Chief; highest in rank, character or respectability; as the principal officers of a government; the principal men of a city, town, or state. Acts 25. 1 Chron.24.

2. Chief; most important or considerable; as the principal topics of debate; the principal arguments in a case; the principal points of law; the principal beams of a building; the principal productions of a country....etc.

Meaning simply this:

Of all the ancestors of all the various Native American peoples, men like Lehi and Nephi were the principal ones - or the ones highest in character and respectability, and were thus the most important, considerable, and noteworthy.

This is nowhere near the same as claiming those men were the ancestors of *all* Native American people, regardless of the scope one gives to ancient Book of Mormon lands. So I don't quite follow how the "principal ancestor" phrase stays entangled in a DNA discussion.

[Who Knows]

Not this again...

I think he means main, or, predominant.

[The Dude]

hagoth7-

Dr. Stewart said:

I believe that Book of Mormon peoples *could be* the principal/dominant ancestors of modern Native Americans, at least from a DNA standpoint.

You should read Dr. Stewart's paper, and then read the setup of our debate in the Pundits thread, where you will see that he means the Book of Mormon could explain the origin of virtually all Native Americans. Your revisionist interpretation of principal is an appeal to some kind of Limited Genetics Theory, which isn't what Stewart is saying nor what I am disputing. Sorry about the confusion.

[why me]

I always consider the possibility that the church is actually true. But considering the possibility doesn't guarantee that it will come up true in my calculations.

What does this mean? I think Seth that you are not being honest here. I have followed your posts and no where do I see you leaving open such a possibility as the church is true. In fact, you are rather hostile to it and have given your more or less exmo testimony about the falseness of the lds church. Possibilities allow for openness and I see no openness in your posts. Most former TBM's who post on the internet, take an absolutist stance in their exmo convictions and I am sure they were also absolutist as a TBM. And I see this in your posts.

DNA is an issue to a point but I do believe that the issue is becoming a non-issue. A year or so ago it was a hot potato but at this moment it seems to be on the back burner. And the reason is clear: Nothing pretaining to dna is conclusive.

[The Dude]

Nothing pretaining to dna is conclusive.

Could you explain what you mean by that?

[why me]

Could you explain what you mean by that?

I was referring to the BofM. Nothing is conclusive with dna findings as we can see from the debate now going on the fair boards and in other forms of discussion channels.

[Who Knows]

Could you explain what you mean by that?

Let me try:

"A year or so ago it was a hot potato (pre-Limited Genetics Theory) but at this moment (post-Limited Genetics Theory) it seems to be on the back burner."

[The Dude]

I was referring to the BofM. Nothing is conclusive with dna findings as we can see from the debate now going on the fair boards and in other forms of discussion channels.

Ah, but "why me", I'm saying -- and have always said -- there is something about the BoM we can conclude from DNA findings.

You say, "...as we can see from the debate now going on the fair boards..." I hope you don't mean this specific debate between Stewart and myself.

My position, the position of LDS critics, and the position of the majority of LDS apologists (who favor LGT) is that BoM people could NOT be the principal/dominant ancestors [of virtually all Native Americans].

That is a conclusion from DNA findings, and many of us, including most LDS apologists, contend it is quite conclusive. The debate about Stewart's paper just shows that I think he's wrong and is unfortunately leading people such as yourself into confusion.

[hagoth7]

....you will see that he [Dr. Stewart] means the Book of Mormon could explain the origin of virtually all Native Americans.

I understand his premise. I simply don't agree with it, or with the laquer of errant meaning regularly applied to the word "principal".

Your revisionist interpretation of principal is an appeal to some kind of Limited Genetics Theory

Actually, it isn't an apeal to genetics at all. Not even remotely.

It's simply an appeal to more concise English, and a clarification that the tendency to run home to DNA as some supposed referee to Nephite testimony is based on an entirely false premise about the word "principal" use by earlier LDS leaders. Careless use (or even abuse) of that term in DNA discussions flings such quotes out of their original orbits, to the detriment of faith. It has already harmed too many good people.

Simply drawing a distinct line in the sand. Perhaps a principal line in the sand.

[YH8]

Why don't you afford that possibility to all the other churches in existance Y8H. Why are you just so dead set on your one little sect? Open your mind, give each religion the benefit of the doubt for a decade or two before you make up your mind. If you ask it others, do it yourself.

Why?

Did you seriously debate within yourself about the LDS Church for 10-20 years before you ultiamtely decided to leave?

What makes you assume that I or others have not sufficiently evaluated other religions? How do you know my mind is not open? Since when are we to assume that a little sect cannot be true? Do you allow others to make up their mind if it is in disagrrement with your mind?

What about a person coming to a decision based on personal experience and understanding of doctrine? You do realize that if a person believes (for a variety of reasons) things LDS, that it rules out other religions. Does this make any sense to you in any constructive sort of way? Or just something to get upset about?

[The Dude]

*sigh*

Please stay tuned. I do believe you've been led to the wrong conclusion.

maklelan-

Did you read my review in the Pundits thread? Any thoughts on that?

[maklelan]

I happen to agree that the Lehites and Mulekites were not the main pool of ancestry for Native Americans. I don't see Stewart's argument for the "principle ancestors" position all that crucial, but for those who struggle with it, I think it at least gives them a little more room than others.

[z0iid]

I apologize in advance - I have not read all the responses to the orginal page of comments.

But, to those stubborn enough to refute the DNA evidence that American indians are of Asian decent, have you taken in the other evidence?

None of the liguistics of any American Indian tribe (north, central, or southern) bears any resemblance to hebrew dialects.

Also - the tools the American Indians used during the era that the "hebrew" decendants arrived are very similar to those used in the area of Asia that the DNA reflects - nothing like tools/pottery from that era of Isreal.

I admit, I don't know the book of Mormon all that well. But what I do know is that the book of Mormon is based on writings that Joseph Smith "interpreted" from tablets he "found". He may have been visited by an other-worldly entity - but it wasn't one from heaven....unless messengers from heaven use deceit...

That being said, every Mormon I know is a better person than me, more devoted to their faith than I am, a much nicer human being. As a generalization - Mormons are very zealous and earnest. That is to be admired.

But so are followers of the Koran. Each believes that the teachings they immerse themselves in - is the fact, and the only truth.

There aren't ANY stories, facts, etc, in the Bible that can be proven to be fabricated. And if there were - I would step back and wonder where to go. It would be very unsettling.

I challenge any Mormon to check the facts. Make your future life decisions based on fact....not fiction.

Much Love.

-c

[Daniel Peterson]

I admit, I don't know the book of Mormon all that well.

With that in mind, I would caution you against drawing sweeping judgments about it.

I'm guessing that your knowledge of contemporary Mormon scholarship is no better, and perhaps much weaker, than your knowledge of the Book of Mormon.

He may have been visited by an other-worldly entity - but it wasn't one from heaven....unless messengers from heaven use deceit...

See above.

There aren't ANY stories, facts, etc, in the Bible that can be proven to be fabricated. And if there were - I would step back and wonder where to go. It would be very unsettling.

I have no wish at all to damage your apparent faith in the Bible. But you are na

[William Schryver]

None of the liguistics of any American Indian tribe (north, central, or southern) bears any resemblance to hebrew dialects.

Are you certain?

Professor Brian Stubbs is at least one person who would disagree with you. He has identified hundreds of remarkable similarities between Hebrew/Egyptian roots and Uto/Aztecan roots. He has also identified specific patterns that explain the linguistic evolution from the ancient Hebrew and Egyptian to the more modern Uto/Aztecan.

[z0iid]

**quote** QUOTE

None of the liguistics of any American Indian tribe (north, central, or southern) bears any resemblance to hebrew dialects.

Are you certain?

Professor Brian Stubbs is at least one person who would disagree with you. He has identified hundreds of remarkable similarities between Hebrew/Egyptian roots and Uto/Aztecan roots. He has also identified specific patterns that explain the linguistic evolution from the ancient Hebrew and Egyptian to the more modern Uto/Aztecan.

Daniel Peterson Posted Today, 03:50 PM

QUOTE(z0iid @ Oct 31 2006, 03:34 PM) *

I admit, I don't know the book of Mormon all that well.

With that in mind, I would caution you against drawing sweeping judgments about it.

I'm guessing that your knowledge of contemporary Mormon scholarship is no better, and perhaps much weaker, than your knowledge of the Book of Mormon.

QUOTE(z0iid @ Oct 31 2006, 03:34 PM) *

He may have been visited by an other-worldly entity - but it wasn't one from heaven....unless messengers from heaven use deceit...

See above.

QUOTE(z0iid @ Oct 31 2006, 03:34 PM) *

There aren't ANY stories, facts, etc, in the Bible that can be proven to be fabricated. And if there were - I would step back and wonder where to go. It would be very unsettling.

I have no wish at all to damage your apparent faith in the Bible. But you are na

[TrespassersW]

zOiid:

Also - the tools the American Indians used during the era that the "hebrew" decendants arrived are very similar to those used in the area of Asia that the DNA reflects - nothing like tools/pottery from that era of Isreal.

I just watched a Nova special about the clovis arrowheads (which were so popular among the ancient inhabitants of the New World). The show made it very clear that these arrowheads were NOT similar to those used in Asia. They speculated that the technology actually came via ship from Western Europe. This is simply to point out that there is ample evidence for migrations to the Americas other than across the Bering Strait.

I admit, I don't know the book of Mormon all that well. But what I do know is that the book of Mormon is based on writings that Joseph Smith "interpreted" from tablets he "found". He may have been visited by an other-worldly entity - but it wasn't one from heaven....unless messengers from heaven use deceit...

...

I challenge any Mormon to check the facts. Make your future life decisions based on fact....not fiction.

I would certainly hope, that if I were to take it upon myself to go onto a message board dedicated to a particular religion and start accusing their religious founders of "deceit" that I would first at least take the time to familiarize myself with the relevant material. Typically speaking, reading a book should be a prerequisite to criticizing it. Before one can confidently claim that the claims of a book have been disproven, it usually helps to first be familiar with the claims made by that book.

It certainly seems ironic that you would challenge us to check the facts immediately after admitting that you aren't all that familiar with them. And, of course, the insinuation that we eschew facts in favor of fiction is certain to be received in the spirit "much love" that you feel for us. Might I suggest that if you want us to believe that you truly love and care about us that you be a bit more hesitant to assume that we are universally ignorant.

But, when one of the fundamental ideas behind the Book of Mormon (not an expert here) has so much evidence against it - (not theorys, guesses, circumstancial evidence) it seems like a good time to question.

Could you maybe supply us with a couple of examples of that "evidence"? I've seen a great many arguments presented against the Book of Mormon and I have to admit, I'm anxious to see what you've collected in the way of "evidence" that doesn't consist of theories, guesses, and circumstantial evidence. Do you have actual, hard evidence that contradicts claims made by the Book of Mormon?

[Log]

None of the liguistics of any American Indian tribe (north, central, or southern) bears any resemblance to hebrew dialects.

Are you certain?

Professor Brian Stubbs is at least one person who would disagree with you. He has identified hundreds of remarkable similarities between Hebrew/Egyptian roots and Uto/Aztecan roots. He has also identified specific patterns that explain the linguistic evolution from the ancient Hebrew and Egyptian to the more modern Uto/Aztecan.

It is that precise fact which demonstrates the utter irrelevancy of the DNA arguments. If their language is here, they were here.

[The Dude]

Lognormal:

There are presently no detailed linguistic accounts of the evolution of any Hebrew or Egyptian language into Uto/Aztecan, only a variety of wishful speculations.

Gee, that was easy.

[Log]

Lognormal:

There are presently no detailed linguistic accounts of the evolution of any Hebrew or Egyptian language into Uto/Aztecan, only a variety of wishful speculations.

Gee, that was easy.

Stubbs is relevant - you aren't. Harold's knowledge of the explanatory power of the Darwinian mechanism in biology is relevant - yours isn't.

C'est la vie.

[The Dude]

Relevant = things Lognormal likes (linguistic evolution, intelligent design, testimony of the BoM)

Irrelevant = things Lognormal doesn't like (Darwinian evolution, DNA arguments, critics of the BoM)

Got it.

[Log]

Relevant = things Lognormal likes (linguistic evolution, intelligent design, testimony of the BoM)

Irrelevant = things Lognormal doesn't like (Darwinian evolution, DNA arguments, critics of the BoM)

Relevant = experts speaking of their own field. (Stubbs, Harold)

Irrelevant = experts speaking outside their own field.

[The Dude]

Relevant = things Lognormal likes (linguistic evolution, intelligent design, testimony of the BoM)

Irrelevant = things Lognormal doesn't like (Darwinian evolution, DNA arguments, critics of the BoM)

Relevant = experts speaking of their own field. (Stubbs, Harold)

Irrelevant = experts speaking outside their own field.

Oh, that would have been useful to know before my debate with the physician/surgeon, but I actually prefer to take an argument on it's own merits and not rely so heavily on arguments from authority (or non-authority, if you will).

And what's my field? Do you know? Hint: it's not linguistics.

It's possible I would agree with Franklin Harold, if I read him in context to see what he precisely means. And then I would turn back to you and say, "So what? The fact that Harold has pointed out an interesting problem means what to you?"

[YH8]

1) And what's my field? Do you know? Hint: it's not linguistics.

2) It's possible I would agree with Franklin Harold, if I read him in context to see what he precisely means. And then I would turn back to you and say, "So what? The fact that Harold has pointed out an interesting problem means what to you?"

1) Non-human cancer genetics - you claim

Anti-Mormonism - you deny

1a) The Dude isn't going to try and claim expertise in DNA now, is s/he?

Isn't it interesting how s/he decries appeals to authority out of one side of his/her mouth and then appeals to authority out of the other side?

2) How could you possibly disagree with another scientist? Disagreements between scientists are impossible because interpretations just don't happen, right?

Lest we forget, The Dude is the one who said DNA is not a sufficient reason to lose faith in things LDS, but a tool to provide support or justification for leaving the Church to family/friends.

[Daniel Peterson]

You may be right that Professor Brian Stubbs (among others) have found liguistic similarities to support Hebrew/Egyptian roots....but there are far more papers/studies that show otherwise.

Can you name some of the many papers and studies that you've read that directly address Brian Stubbs's arguments and data?

ANd if there are more professionals with evidence supporting Asian linguistic roots than Hebrew roots - I go with it. But no, since I am not a linguistics expert - I CANNOT BE CERTAIN.

Your unfamiliarity with Brian Stubbs's argument shines forth in your assumption that this is an either/or -- either Hebrew roots altogether or no Hebrew roots at all.

Incidentally, while you're at it, can you cite some of the articles you've read about the Asian roots of Amerindian languages? I would like to pursue this topic.

But, when one of the fundamental ideas behind the Book of Mormon (not an expert here) has so much evidence against it - (not theorys, guesses, circumstancial evidence) it seems like a good time to question.

Just curious: Could you, perhaps, list a half dozen or so of the articles and/or books on this subject that you've read by Latter-day Saint scholars?

To believe the Book of Mormon, you have to place immense trust and faith in Joseph Smith in that he was the only writer. (am I correct?)

No, you're not. To believe in the Book of Mormon in the mainstream Latter-day Saint way, you have to believe that neither Joseph Smith nor any other modern individual or group wrote it.

The bible (especially the New Testament) has several authors/writers that collaborate events. To have serious arguments against fundamental aspects of christianity and the bible, you have to discount dozens of witnesses of that time period.

Well, yes and no.

By the way, are you familiar with the Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses to the Book of Mormon?

Oh, that would have been useful to know before my debate with the physician/surgeon,

That, I think, would be the physician/surgeon who has a degree in molecular biology, right?