Dr. Stewart's DNA Paper...

[Dan Vogel]

CI,

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......"

It's an interpretive biography, as I state in the intro. I wasn't going to rehash the debate about BOM historicity, but rather move on from there and explore JS based on the assumption that the BOM was not historical. My main object was to explore what JS thought he was up to.

[Dan Vogel]

Will,

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??â?? only your flawed historiographical methodologies.

I understand the two part argument, but the second part is still there for a reason, not just for comparison. If you wanted a comparison, there are hundreds of examples on the net that don't involve me. So, let's not play games. You were trying to reduce the force of my argument by "attacking" (or "accusing", if you like) me for doing the same thing.

Stewart did commit the fallacy of possible proof, because despite arguing that certain aspects of DNA dating are problematic he also argued (or implied) that the future will bring further corrections that will establish his point about dating.

Now I can add you to this fallacy, because you argue with The Dude:

I do understand your argument. I think our difference of opinion centers on the meaning of the word â??â??proven.â?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??â??proveâ?â? anything. You understand the nature of the assumptions at work in these calculations. You regard them as informed. But â??â??proven?â?â? I donâ??â??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??â??softâ?â? 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??â??softestâ?â? of the soft?

I see the Dude responded to this already. But it's a good example of the fallacy of possible (dis)proof. You think because something can't be "proven" (what? without a doubt?), there still is a chance that it's wrong in such a way as to support your unproven theory?

You again show that you don't know what the fallacy of possible proof is when you state:

I then cited what is a definitive, textbook example of the fallacy from your â??â??bioâ?â? 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.

This does not respond to my argument that speculation is unavoidable in this circumstance because the plates were covered. The BOM is probably not history, therefore the plates were probably made of tin. Moreover, my discussion of tin plates has nothing to do with falsifying the testimony of the witnesses? If any thing, it would work in the opposite direction. Since the 8 witnesses didn't see the plates uncovered, the plates could have been made of tin.

[cksalmon]

[1] The BOM is probably not history, therefore [2] the plates were probably made of tin.

Hi Dan--

I'm sure there's a lot of background information presumed here with which I'm not that conversant. I agree with you, insofar, at least, as I believe it is entirely plausible that the plates were made of tin.

But, as stated in your condensed response here, I have trouble getting from [1] to [2]. It has the feel, as presented, of a non sequitur. I'm not sure that [1] can in any way lead to [2] without some intervening propositions.

Best to you.

CKS

[Dan Vogel]

cksalmon,

[1] The BOM is probably not history, therefore [2] the plates were probably made of tin.

I'm sure there's a lot of background information presumed here with which I'm not that conversant. I agree with you, insofar, at least, as I believe it is entirely plausible that the plates were made of tin.

But, as stated in your condensed response here, I have trouble getting from [1] to [2]. It has the feel, as presented, of a non sequitur. I'm not sure that [1] can in any way lead to [2] without some intervening propositions.

Call me lazy. I wasn't trying to make a syllogistic argument. But I think Will gets that I was not discussing JS's possible construction of plates in a vacuum. However, I wonder where else you think the proposition that the BOM is not history can lead?

[Son]

Still going on about genetics.

It is simple, God changed them. Man the minutian mind set to explain a simple subject.

They fell from grace, they sinned their was a darkness put over them, DNA CHANGE. Wahla American Indian bloodline.

let it rest. that wasn't very polite, sorry.

son

[The Dude]

Still going on about genetics.

It is simple, God changed them. Man the minutian mind set to explain a simple subject.

They fell from grace, they sinned their was a darkness put over them, DNA CHANGE. Wahla American Indian bloodline.

let it rest. that wasn't very polite, sorry.

son

Think about it: why did God change their DNA to most resemble a people that now lives in the Altai mountains of southern Siberia? Just to confuse us? God could have scrambled the DNA into something totally new, but instead He made it something that points to southern Siberia... what a strange God you've got. Sort of makes science pointless, doesn't it?

[cksalmon]

However, I wonder where else you think the proposition that the BOM is not history can lead?

I suppose I was responding to the specificity of tin as the metal of the plates' construction. Sometimes I can't see the forest for the trees.

I wouldn't have batted an eye at, "The BoM is probably not true, therefore the plates were probably made of something other than gold." Drawing on just simple, shared common knowledge, this claim seems self-evident.

Best to you.

CKS

[Dan Vogel]

cksalmon,

I suppose I was responding to the specificity of tin as the metal of the plates' construction. Sometimes I can't see the forest for the trees.

I wouldn't have batted an eye at, "The BoM is probably not true, therefore the plates were probably made of something other than gold." Drawing on just simple, shared common knowledge, this claim seems self-evident.

Tin, because it's the only metal readily available in JS's environment within the weight specifications.

[cksalmon]

cksalmon,

Tin, because it's the only metal readily available in JS's environment within the weight specifications.

Dan--

I see.

Uncle Dale has suggested copper. I admit I personally don't know which of the two better fits the weight specifications, though I'll take your word it that tin fits best.

UD went so far as to suggest a ready source for copper sheets near Palmyra. It was in a thread here not too long ago, but I'm not sure if I can find it, or if it's that germane to the topic at hand.

At any rate, best to you.

CKS

[cksalmon]

Dan--

I see.

Uncle Dale has suggested copper. I admit I personally don't know which of the two better fits the weight specifications, though I'll take your word it that tin fits best.

UD went so far as to suggest a ready source for copper sheets near Palmyra. It was in a thread here not too long ago, but I'm not sure if I can find it, or if it's that germane to the topic at hand.

At any rate, best to you.

CKS

Actually, it was in a thread about your suggestion of tin as the source metal, though I may have been wrong about UD's suggesting a location (I haven't scanned the entire thread): see here and here.

Best.

CKS

[Dan Vogel]

cksalmon,

In The Making of a Prophet, I have offered the following calculations:

65. William Smith said the plates â??weighed about sixty pounds according to the best of my judgmentâ? (William Smith, William Smith on Mormonism [Lamoni, IA: Herald Steam Book and Job Office, 1883], 12 [EMD 1:497]; see also â??W[illia]m. B. Smithâ??s Last Statement,â? [John W. Peterson to Editor], Zionâ??s Ensign [independence, MO] 5 [13 Jan. 1894]: 6 [EMD 1:511]). Martin Harris, who said he hefted the plates many times, estimated that they â??weighed forty or fifty poundsâ? (Tiffanyâ??s Monthly 5 [Aug. 1859]: 166 [EMD 2:306]). A block of solid tin measuring 7 x 8 x 6 inches, or 288 cubic inches, would weigh 74.67 pounds. If one allows for a 30 percent reduction due to the unevenness and space between the plates, the package would then weigh 52.27 pounds. Using the same calculations, plates of gold weigh 140.50 pounds; copper, 64.71 pounds; a mixture of gold and copper, between 65 and 140 pounds. -- (p. 600)

While copper is only a little heavier than tin, it was not readily available in JS's environment. I think Dale suggests copper because he thinks it's a way to explain the Testimony of Eight Witnesses. In my view, no one actually saw the plates uncovered. So there would be no need to go through considerable more trouble making them out of copper.

[cdowis]

>Think about it: why did God change their DNA to most resemble a people that now lives in the Altai mountains of southern Siberia? Just to confuse us?

I am thinking about it..... nope, he wouldn't.

But then again, there are components or characteristics of this haplogroup x that is significantly different from the Amerindian haplogroup x, and they are not connected at all (by the author's own admission, this was only an indicator of future research, not a final conclusion).

The fact is that these are completely unrelated, and that is the plausible explanation rather than some antimormon silliness.

>In my view, no one actually saw the plates uncovered.

I guess in your universe there are no complications of historical evidence indicating otherwise. Just ignore the evidence, such as the statement of the eight witnesses itself, and all difficulties vanish.

[The Dude]

Think about it: why did God change their DNA to most resemble a people that now lives in the Altai mountains of southern Siberia? Just to confuse us?

I am thinking about it..... nope, he wouldn't.

Good answer.

But then again, there are components or characteristics of this haplogroup x that is significantly different from the Amerindian haplogroup x, and they are not connected at all (by the author's own admission, this was only an indicator of future research, not a final conclusion).

If you are referring to the Zegura paper, then yes, that's true. There is a haplogroup X in the Altai region of Siberia, but it's different than the North American one. Zegura seemed hopeful, but it's probably too much to hope to explain all the facts with one Asian population source. We'll see....

On the other hand, the proposal that haplogroup X (representing ~3% of Native American mtDNAs) could be a remnant of BoM people is based on the idea that Lehites/Mulekites had a very limited genetic contribution. That's a different discussion, and hasn't even been on the table in the pundit thread where Stewart has tried to defend the notion that traditional (not-LGT) models are in harmony with genetics.

So, what archeologists conclude regarding the BOM is, for some people, not particularly important. It is more indicative of their ignorance based on a lack of tools, and the sad state of mesoamerican archeology rather than a commentary on the validity of the BOM text.

Genetics is a hard science. Here are the some facts I presented to Will earlier in this thread:

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.

Would you agree with me that, based on genetics, we can conclude that a "traditional" model proposing Lehites/Melukites as the principal genetic ancestors is false? Or are you going to be as evasive as Will Schryver? (Please don't try and argue about what the traditional model is/was... if you don't think this was ever the traditional model that's fine, I just want to know if you agree with me that IF ANYONE believed it, it is proven false.)

[cdowis]

>On the other hand, the proposal that haplogroup X (representing ~3% of Native American mtDNAs) could be a remnant of BoM people

That is not my argument. This is indicative that the "bering strait" only crowd (vs transoceanic) has alot of explaining to do. But that is pretty much a settled issue now.

Far more interesting is the discovery of a common ancestor link between the woman fr Greece and a full-blooded Amerindian. Makes sense in the context of the voyage of Mulek and his group (using Greeks as sailors, and the name "Timothy" in the BOM).

[Merry]

Far more interesting is the discovery of a common ancestor link between the woman fr Greece and a full-blooded Amerindian. Makes sense in the context of the voyage of Mulek and his group (using Greeks as sailors, and the name "Timothy" in the BOM).

Makes much more sense to me as evidence that Indians taken back to Europe as slaves, by Columbus and his crowd-- did survive and have descendants.

[Son]

Think about it: why did God change their DNA to most resemble a people that now lives in the Altai mountains of southern Siberia? Just to confuse us? God could have scrambled the DNA into something totally new, but instead He made it something that points to southern Siberia... what a strange God you've got. Sort of makes science pointless, doesn't it?

Dna most resembles? If it is different it is different. The DNA structures are not huge leaps they are little changes, that make big results.

God has a system, if you scramble DNA you don't know what you may get.

Points to southern siberia? needle in a haystack.

And yes God will do His strange act in the days to come.

[cdowis]

>Makes much more sense to me as evidence that Indians taken back to Europe as slaves, by Columbus and his crowd-- did survive and have descendants.

Gotcha. Amerindian taken by Columbus to Greece as slave. His descendants intermingled with the Greeks, and their children then came to America.

Just another coincidence.

[The Dude]

>On the other hand, the proposal that haplogroup X (representing ~3% of Native American mtDNAs) could be a remnant of BoM people

That is not my argument. This is indicative that the "bering strait" only crowd (vs transoceanic) has alot of explaining to do. But that is pretty much a settled issue now.

This does not count as response to my question. You are being evasive. (Who is the bering strait-only crowd? Not me.)

[cdowis]

>This does not count as response to my question.

You have me confused with someone else.

[The Dude]

>This does not count as response to my question.

You have me confused with someone else.

Oh, right. The other cdowis.