Dr. Stewart's DNA Paper...

[William Schryver]

Hi Will,

Just wondering if you saw what I said in my last post on this thread. Here it is again:

I do appreciate the point you are attempting to make.

As you also know, I believe that Stewart makes a serious error in attempting to defend his thesis based entirely on the notion that Lehites and Mulekites represent the principal ancestor group of Amerinds. I believe that the most realistic set of arguments in terms of Book of Mormon historicity must assume the survival of tens or hundreds of thousands of Jaredites after their civilization's disintegration. Pushing the timeline back another two millenia, and given the uncertain genetic constitution of the Jaredite population (as well as whatever indigenous population they may have encountered upon their arrival) permits us to come considerably closer to reconciling current archaeogenetic opinion with Book of Mormon history, especially in light of the admitted uncertainties still associated with what presently constitutes archaeogenetic "consensus."

[Dan Vogel]

Will,

The Dude is confident in the assumptions that undergird the divergence dating, despite the fact that only a few years ago those assumptions were different and resulted in considerably more ancient results.

David Stewart is not confident in the assumptions that undergird the divergence dating, and he believes that it is likely that the future will prove them flawed in some fashion, despite the fact that there is considerable scientific consensus at present regarding them.

DS doesn't like the science? Even after it has been improved? His questioning of science is beginning to sound like the Creationists. The only grounds on which DS can question the science is on scientific grounds, not some intuition. He must show the science is wrong or else forfeit the debate.

In conclusion, I think both sides elucidated their respective positions well. The bottom line is that current population genetics DOES seem to indicate a more ancient origin (~9000 - ~13,000 years BP) for Amerinds than is suggested by the Book of Mormon. On the other hand, this same field of science provided a much earlier date (~20,000 - ~35,000 years BP) not that long ago. It is reasonable to suggest that these dating calculations may yet undergo future refinements that place the date of divergence closer to the time indicated by the Book of Mormon.

This is the fallacy of possible proof. It's not enough to show the possibility of error, but DS needs to show the probability of error. Until then, he has shifted the discussion to a non-scientific ground. There is nothing absolutely certain about science, but how certain can one be in DS's intuition? This is no different than Creationist arguments against evolution. Sure, the number could be wrong, but on what authority does DS question them?

Southerton has just responded to Stewart also at.

http://www.signaturebooks.com/news.htm

The main part reads:

In Stewart's scenario, modern Asians are Israelitesâ??â??the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel. His evidence for this comes from patriarchal blessings rumored to have stated as much. In order to defend his speculation, Stewart glosses over the accepted range of dates for the settlement of various regions of the world, rejecting the consensus view of scientists, whom he jeers at as "self-proclaimed experts." He quotes a letter to the American Journal of Human Genetics in which several scientists argue for "a fairly recent settling of the Americas." Stewart scandalously leaves his readers with the impression this letter must be confirming a Book of Mormon time frame. Stewart neglects to reveal that the scientists, in their letter, stated that DNA evidence "precludes a time of entry [into the Americas] greater than 20,000 years BP" in favor of a period "closer to 15,00-18,000 years BP" (Mark Seielstad, et al., "A Novel Y-Chromosome Variant," AJHG 73:3). While Stewart argues for a "recent" peopling of the Americas, which to him means about 2,600 BP, he addsâ??â??only to discredit scientific dating: "Recent archaeological finds in South America that appear to be older than those in North America have led some scholars to champion the Pacific colonization theory." The dates are apparently both younger and older than the scientists maintain. It just goes to show that Stewart is smarter than the scientists, who don't know much of anythingâ??â??a complaint one often hears from FARMS.

So DS joins the legions of pseudo-scientists who try to defend their weird ideas by attacking science. Nothing new here.

[The Dude]

I do appreciate the point you are attempting to make.

As you also know, I believe that Stewart makes a serious error in attempting to defend his thesis based entirely on the notion that Lehites and Mulekites represent the principal ancestor group of Amerinds. I believe that the most realistic set of arguments in terms of Book of Mormon historicity must assume the survival of tens or hundreds of thousands of Jaredites after their civilization's disintegration. Pushing the timeline back another two millenia, and given the uncertain genetic constitution of the Jaredite population (as well as whatever indigenous population they may have encountered upon their arrival) permits us to come considerably closer to reconciling current archaeogenetic opinion with Book of Mormon history, especially in light of the admitted uncertainties still associated with what presently constitutes archaeogenetic "consensus."

I do understand that. If that had been Stewart's original model, the discussion would have been very different. If "Jaredites" could have had whatever genetic composition you like, and they could have come at any old time you like, then I don't see how DNA can prove/disprove such a loosely defined origin.

So do you agree with me that current DNA evidence disproves traditional LDS models that said (or might have said... I don't want a theological debate) Lehites and Mulekites are the principal DNA ancestors of Native Americans? Whenever DNA evidence is debated on the FAIRboard, this is the position that I (and most LDS apologists, I think) agree on.

[cdowis]

Dude ("it's only a coincidence") writes:

>So DS joins the legions of pseudo-scientists who try to defend their weird ideas by attacking science.

Or are you saying that scientific opinion/consensus is science itself?

Let's take a simple example:

Scientists proclaim (at one time) that we live in a geocentric universe. They prove this with millions upon millions of data sets, observations where the sun has risen in the east and sets in the west.

And those who dispute the geocentric view of the universe are "attacking science"?

Is that what you are telling us?

I have studied the history of science. It appears that you have not.

BTW, have you abandoned your "coincidence" thread, just when it was getting interesting?

[William Schryver]

Vogel:

So DS joins the legions of pseudo-scientists who try to defend their weird ideas by attacking science. Nothing new here.

I find myself reluctant to reply to your drive-by shots, since it seems you have jumped into the discussion without having even bothered to familiarize yourself with the arguments. At least your responses seem to indicate as much.

Stewart has done considerably more than "try to defend [his] weird ideas by attacking science". In fact, I think even The Dude would admit that Stewart has effectively immasculated the arguments of Murphy and Southerton. Whether he has sufficiently brought into question the so-called "science" behind current archaeogenetic conclusions is another issue. And as I have already suggested above, I believe he errs in not including the Jaredite factor in his equations from the very start.

Nevertheless, Stewart has persuasively shown that there is a pronounced (and inherently unavoidable) lack of methodological rigor present in the studies that support current divergence dating conclusions. He has also demonstrated an undeniable trend of dating conclusions moving ever-closer to the present. Your condemnation on the basis of the fallacy of possible proof is not applicable in this case.

Indeed, the fallacy of possible proof is far better exemplified by speculations such as tin plates and group hallucinations.

[William Schryver]

The Dude:

So do you agree with me that current DNA evidence disproves traditional LDS models that said (or might have said... I don't want a theological debate) Lehites and Mulekites are the principal DNA ancestors of Native Americans?

I do not agree that anything has been â?provenâ? at this juncture. I acknowledge the â??consensusâ? conclusions in terms of divergence dating. I also recognize the inherent uncertainties associated with the studies that produce those conclusions. And I simply make note of the Jaredite factor because I believe the text of the Book of Mormon requires it.

[Dan Vogel]

CD,

Dude ("it's only a coincidence") writes:

>So DS joins the legions of pseudo-scientists who try to defend their weird ideas by attacking science.

Or are you saying that scientific opinion/consensus is science itself?

Let's take a simple example:

Scientists proclaim (at one time) that we live in a geocentric universe. They prove this with millions upon millions of data sets, observations where the sun has risen in the east and sets in the west.

And those who dispute the geocentric view of the universe are "attacking science"?

Is that what you are telling us?

I have studied the history of science. It appears that you have not.

BTW, have you abandoned your "coincidence" thread, just when it was getting interesting?

You are responding to my post, not the Dude's.

Your whole argument is fallacious. You analogy involves a major conceptual shift in science, which doesn't happen very often and especially not now. The important thing is on what grounds one questions science. How much respect should we give those who would argue against the heliocentric theory because scientists once supported a geocentric theory? It is typical for pseudo-scientists and cultists to use just the argument that is being employed here to support their own pet theory in lieu of offering evidence.

[Dan Vogel]

Will,

I find myself reluctant to reply to your drive-by shots, since it seems you have jumped into the discussion without having even bothered to familiarize yourself with the arguments. At least your responses seem to indicate as much.

I'm only responding to your own complaint about DS.

Stewart has done considerably more than "try to defend [his] weird ideas by attacking science". In fact, I think even The Dude would admit that Stewart has effectively immasculated the arguments of Murphy and Southerton. Whether he has sufficiently brought into question the so-called "science" behind current archaeogenetic conclusions is another issue. And as I have already suggested above, I believe he errs in not including the Jaredite factor in his equations from the very start.

As I said, I was responding to your discussion, which included DS's opposition to the science on this matter. His belief that it will change to his favor is the fallacy of wishful thinking, among others.

Nevertheless, Stewart has persuasively shown that there is a pronounced (and inherently unavoidable) lack of methodological rigor present in the studies that support current divergence dating conclusions. He has also demonstrated an undeniable trend of dating conclusions moving ever-closer to the present. Your condemnation on the basis of the fallacy of possible proof is not applicable in this case.

Trend? The fallacy of the continuum, I dare say. Even you doubt this line of argument since you think he should have included the Jaredites.

Indeed, the fallacy of possible proof is far better exemplified by speculations such as tin plates and group hallucinations.

Perhaps you should look up the fallacy of possible proof before you pull something out of your hat at random in order to make nonsensical statements.

[cdowis]

>Your whole argument is fallacious. You analogy involves a major conceptual shift in science, which doesn't happen very often and especially not now.

Giving an argument the label "fallacious" does not make it so. You strung a bunch of words together after your "because", but the logic fails me. I will point out that I did NOT use an analogy. I used an actual situation from history.

Perhaps you can lead us thru your logic. I assume you know how to create a syllogism. I think you are full of baloney, but perhaps you will surprise me.

Let me help:

Premise A.......

Premise B....

Therefore.......

[cdowis]

Part 2

The specific example I gave demonstrates the difference between a FACT and the **interpretation** of that observation or fact. It is the fundamental difference between science and the scientist.

I realize this makes some people angry. They refuse to separate fact from opinion, science from the human element. The millions billions of observations were misinterpreted by the human scientists, and a major conceptual error was made.

This is simply not agreeable to some, and they proclaim that I am "attacking science", or anti-science. They worship at the schrine of science and I have spoken blasphemy.

Let's use the tools of science, math and philosophy, and use logic. Please give us your logical syllogism to disprove what I have said.

Let's see substance rather than hot air.

[William Schryver]

Vogel:

Indeed, the fallacy of possible proof is far better exemplified by speculations such as tin plates and group hallucinations.

Perhaps you should look up the fallacy of possible proof before you pull something out of your hat at random in order to make nonsensical statements.

The Fallacy of Possible Proof

The fallacy of possible proof consists in an attempt to demonstrate that a factual statement is true or false by establishing the possibility of its truth or falsity.

(Historiansâ?? Fallacies, David Hackett Fischer, p. 53)

Smithâ??s own description had â??each plate â?¦ six inches wide and eight inches long and not quite so thick as common tin â?¦ bound together in a volume, as the leaves of a book with three rings running through the whole. The volume was something near six inches in thickness, a part of which was sealed.â? His remark that a plate was not quite as thick as common tin may have been meant to divert attention from the possibility that they were actually made from some material otherwise readily available to him. Indeed, his prohibition against visual inspection seems contrived to the skeptic who might explain that the would-be prophet constructed a set of plates to be felt through a cloth.

(Joseph Smith â?? The Making of a Prophet, Dan Vogel, p. 98)

Rather than pulling something out of my hat, I prefer pulling it out of yours.

We appreciate your fondness for trumpeting your alleged familiarity with logical fallacies. However, you should probably avoid doing so when among people who actually understand them, and who are familiar with your frequent employment of so many of them.

[Dan Vogel]

CD,

Giving an argument the label "fallacious" does not make it so. You strung a bunch of words together after your "because", but the logic fails me. I will point out that I did NOT use an analogy. I used an actual situation from history.

But you were arguing analogously. You wanted readers to make inferences from that situation to this, right? I'm saying your analogy is fallacious, and not only fallacious but can be used against you, which I did. Hence my question, which you did not answer:

How much respect should we give those who would argue against the heliocentric theory because scientists once supported a geocentric theory?

I should be obvious to you that such an argument is a poor substitute for offering evidence that directly contradicts or invalidates the science. You might as well say scientists have been mistaken in the past, therefore anything is true. That's basically what you are trying to do, and it's fallacious.

Perhaps you can lead us thru your logic. I assume you know how to create a syllogism. I think you are full of baloney, but perhaps you will surprise me.

Let me help:

Premise A.......

Premise B....

Therefore.......

It's not my logic that's on trial here; it's yours. If I'm not following your reasoning, perhaps you should fill in the blanks.

[cdowis]

Dan,

We live in different universes, and it appears that we can only agree to disagree. Only time will tell which universe is the real one.

I wish you all the best.

[Dan Vogel]

Will,

Rather than pulling something out of my hat, I prefer pulling it out of yours.

We appreciate your fondness for trumpeting your alleged familiarity with logical fallacies. However, you should probably avoid doing so when among people who actually understand them, and who are familiar with your frequent employment of so many of them.

Alleged familiarity ... someone who actually understands fallacies? I strongly suggest you go back and read Fischer's discussion of this fallacy. Just because someone uses the word "possible" or speculates does not mean they are committing the fallacy of possible proof. Moreover you do not understand the nature of my discussion, which is based on the assumption that the BOM is not historical (as I explained in the intro). The problem with this example is that there is no alternative, because we are stuck weighing the likelihood of two speculations about what was under the cloth. Regardless, there is a big difference between possible interpretations and reconstructions of events based on fragmentary evidence and sources, and rejecting evidence based solely on the possibility that future discoveries might disprove it, which is the fallacy of possible proof.

Note in attacking me, you did not deal with DS's fallacy. Instead, you committed the ad hominal fallacy of tu quoque (or "you too").

[Confidential Informant]

Moreover you do not understand the nature of my discussion, which is based on the assumption that the BOM is not historical (as I explained in the intro).

Ahem..... Wouldn't that mean that your whole book is premised on this fallacy? Ouch! I hate it when that happens.

C.I.

[The Dude]

The Dude:

I do not agree that anything has been â?provenâ? at this juncture. I acknowledge the â??consensusâ? conclusions in terms of divergence dating. I also recognize the inherent uncertainties associated with the studies that produce those conclusions. And I simply make note of the Jaredite factor because I believe the text of the Book of Mormon requires it.

I don't think you understand, Will. It isn't all dependent on divergence dating, so "inherent uncertainties" are not enough to say nothing has been disproven at this juncture. Oh well.

[The Dude]

Dude ("it's only a coincidence") writes:

Wrong. You are responding to Dan Vogel with that.

BTW, have you abandoned your "coincidence" thread, just when it was getting interesting?

I asked you a question on that thread, which you never responded to:

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?s=&amp...mp;p=1208066408

Then it was taken over by other posters and I lost interest. I went and started a poll about NHM instead.

[The Dude]

Wouldn't that mean that your whole book is premised on this fallacy? Ouch! I hate it when that happens.

Once again, CI judges a book he has never even read.

[William Schryver]

Dan,

I guess itâ??s a rainy day in Ohio today, and those leaves you should have raked up last weekend are getting soggy while you toil away on the FAIR message board. Arenâ??t there any old newspaper microfilms you could be scouring today instead of demonstrating (once again) the fact that you simply cannot grasp the meaning of the ad hominem logical fallacy?

You state:

Note in attacking me, you did not deal with DS's fallacy.

In the first place, you did not (nor could you) demonstrate wherein I had â??attackedâ? you. It never happened. Showing an example from your own writing where you commit the fallacy of possible proof is not the same as â??attackingâ?, although I appreciate that the distinction is often lost on you.

Not only did I provide Fischerâ??s precise definition for the fallacy:

The Fallacy of Possible Proof

The fallacy of possible proof consists in an attempt to demonstrate that a factual statement is true or false by establishing the possibility of its truth or falsity.

(Historiansâ?? Fallacies, David Hackett Fischer, p. 53)

I then cited what is a definitive, textbook example of the fallacy from your â??bioâ? of Joseph Smith. You want to excuse yourself on the premise that you must explore alternatives to the explanation given by Joseph Smith, and which you reject. As Confidential Informant observes, by establishing this as your premise in the intro, you effectively reduce the entire book to an exercise in the fallacy of possible proof. Surrounded by such towering examples of this logical error in your day to day literary pursuits, it is no surprise that you struggle to see the forest for the trees. Nevertheless, it is not difficult to perceive that your intent is to prove the statements of the witnesses to the plates false by providing any number of possibilities that would falsify their statements. How this fails to meet the not-so-rigorous criteria of the fallacy of possible proof is undoubtedly a mystery to our readers.

But, further, you suggest that I failed to â??deal with DSâ??s fallacy.â? Well, obviously, I denied that he committed any such logical fallacy, for the simple reason that he provided sound argumentation, on scientific grounds, for why we should not have strict confidence in these specific kinds of studies. As Stewart demonstrated, archaeogenetic studies are inherently (and unavoidably) deficient in their adherence to standards of methodological rigor.

Again, you would have done well to have actually read the thread before bopping in here with your random declaratives blazing away.

Finally, you once again demonstrate a serious deficiency of understanding when it comes to one of the most basic of logical fallacies:

â?¦ you committed the ad hominal fallacy of tu quoque (or "you too").

In the first place, tu quoque may accompany, but is not considered adjunct to the ad hominem logical fallacy. And since I strenuously argued that Stewart had not committed the fallacy of possible proof, then it is a non sequitur to suggest that I responded to your employment of the fallacy with tu quoque. Furthermore, you did not, nor could you demonstrate wherein I committed the ad hominem logical fallacy.

Perhaps our readers will profit from this brief definition of the fallacy:

Argumentum ad hominem: (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself.

Inasmuch as my argument was:

1. That Stewart had not committed the fallacy;

and that:

2. Dan Vogel provides us with a textbook example of the fallacy for comparison.

I submit that I attacked neither your character nor your motives â?? only your flawed historiographical methodologies.

By the way, I read Southertonâ??s brief â??rebuttalâ? of Stewartâ??s paper at the link you provided.

To say the least, it was lame. Southerton may be praised in certain anti-Mormon circles for his â??revolutionary workâ? in the field of archaeogenetics, but I submit that any perceptive individual who reads the recent thread in the Punditâ??s forum would acquire a deeper understanding of the relevant issues than Southerton manifests in his misguided remarks. The Dude has a far more intellectually-consistent basis for his arguments than do the Exmormon Foundationâ??s favorite sons.

I don't think you understand, Will. It isn't all dependent on divergence dating, so "inherent uncertainties" are not enough to say nothing has been disproven at this juncture. Oh well.

I do understand your argument. I think our difference of opinion centers on the meaning of the word â??proven.â? Your standard of proof must be quite different than mine if you are attempting to suggest that archaeogenetic studies meet the evidentiary requirements necessary to â??proveâ? anything. You understand the nature of the assumptions at work in these calculations. You regard them as informed. But â??proven?â? I donâ??t believe you would go that far. You have confidence in them, and you have presented your reasons for that confidence. But there are elements of â??softâ? science interwoven in every conclusion reached so far in this nascent field. Do you deny the relationship between the accepted archaeological and anthropological data and the assumptions used in these date calculations? And do you not agree that, of all the scientific disciplines, archaeology and anthropology are the â??softestâ? of the soft?

Hence my reservations.

Plus, you cannot divorce my comments along these lines from my previous qualifiers concerning Jaredite influence in the genetic signature of Amerinds. You must remember that youâ??re not debating against Stewartâ??s arguments when you discuss these issues with me.

[Dan Vogel]

CI,

Ahem..... Wouldn't that mean that your whole book is premised on this fallacy? Ouch! I hate it when that happens.

No. That's not what I said. My book explores the ramifications of the BOM not being historical and a production of JS's. That's not the fallacy of possible proof.

[The Dude]

I do understand your argument. I think our difference of opinion centers on the meaning of the word â??proven.â? Your standard of proof must be quite different than mine if you are attempting to suggest that archaeogenetic studies meet the evidentiary requirements necessary to â??proveâ? anything. You understand the nature of the assumptions at work in these calculations. You regard them as informed. But â??proven?â? I donâ??t believe you would go that far. You have confidence in them, and you have presented your reasons for that confidence. But there are elements of â??softâ? science interwoven in every conclusion reached so far in this nascent field. Do you deny the relationship between the accepted archaeological and anthropological data and the assumptions used in these date calculations? And do you not agree that, of all the scientific disciplines, archaeology and anthropology are the â??softestâ? of the soft?

Hence my reservations.

It's pretty lame to call something "soft science" just so you don't have to deal with it. Archaeology and anthropology are pretty soft (but not as soft as psychology, IMO). Genetics is not.

Here are three points that make up an additional argument besides divergence dating:

1. About 86% of Native American Y-chromosomes are from the C or Q lineages, whether you are talking about Canada, America, Central America, the Amazon, the Andes, whatever. This is not based on divergence dating, but on actual marker analysis. 97% of Native American mtDNAs are from the A,B,C or D lineages.

2. People have been living throughout the Americas since at least 11,000 years BP.

3. We can't say that the above markers were the same ones that dominated 11,000 years BP (although divergence dating suggests they probably were), but we can say for sure that the carriers of C,Q and A-D arrived early enough to accomplish an almost complete genetic takeover of the hemisphere. That couldn't have happened based on the arrival of two boatloads of colonists in 600 BC, considering that the hemisphere was already densely populated.

Plus, you cannot divorce my comments along these lines from my previous qualifiers concerning Jaredite influence in the genetic signature of Amerinds. You must remember that youâ??re not debating against Stewartâ??s arguments when you discuss these issues with me.

Jaredites as principal ancestors is one model. Lehites/Mulekites as principal ancestors is another model. I'm asking you to agree that the latter is disproven, based on genetics (not just divergence dating).

[Confidential Informant]

CI,

No. That's not what I said. My book explores the ramifications of the BOM not being historical and a production of JS's. That's not the fallacy of possible proof.

Actually, I was just trying to be cute. Guess I didn't pull it off very well. So, would it be safe to say that what you wrote is more of a "speculative biograhy"? A sort of "What if......"

C.I.

[William Schryver]

T.D.

Jaredites as principal ancestors is one model. Lehites/Mulekites as principal ancestors is another model. I'm asking you to agree that the latter is disproven, based on genetics (not just divergence dating).

Well, I don't want to get into a tangential debate on this thread, but I'm not sure what "principal" really means.

And although I acknowledge that the data, as I understand it (based on your inimitable elucidations) seems to preclude the notion of Lehites/Mulekites being pre-dominant ancestors, I do not believe it is PROVEN. I appreciate your reasons for having confidence in the conclusions. But I don't believe the evidence presented even approaches the level of proof.

Do you?

Now stop being so inimical! I thought you weren't supposed to be my nemesis. How 'bout if I called the florist and sent you a bunch of anemones? (Along with a fifth of Kahlua, of course!)

I'm leaving for awhile now ... have a nice weekend.

[The Dude]

Do you?

Absolutely.

Have a nice weekend.

[Outshined]

I don't believe the evidence presented even approaches the level of proof.

Do you?

Not even close.