Dr. Stewart's DNA Paper...

[Greg Smith]

To the ordinary person, this reads: Lehites would belong to the same Mtdna haplogroup as Asenath. I think it would be better stated that Lehite mtdna would have come from Sarah and Ishmael's wife.

Both statements are true.

I suspect Stewart's point is that even if we assume that Sariah and Mrs. Ishmael _were_ Manassehite/Ephraimites like their husbands, it is still foolish to use genetic mtDNA from JEWISH studies (i.e. tribe of Judah) as surrogates for what putative descendants of Lehi/Ishmael would have as mtDNA.

Manassehites and Ephraimites don't even START with the same mtDNA mix that the Canaan-bound brothers of Joseph did, so the critics' attempts along these lines is doubly foolish.

And, all that doesn't even get into the issue of the fact that mtDNA of known Jewish groups is not at all the same and not clearly related, which is a third hurdle for the critics...

Kind regards,

Greg

[Greg Smith]

Its just that there are so many such claims and no reason to take them seriously at this time. So, scientists have better things to do.

And yet, here you are.

Clearly, many people DO take such claims very seriously, and you seem to take the issue seriously enough to expend considerable time and words in the effort.

An affirmative demonstration would seem to be more efficient than simply saying, "Well the scientists haven't gotten around to it, but they could disprove it any time."

Sounds like sort of a "my Dad can beat up your Dad" sort of thing.

Kind regards,

Greg

[katherine the great]

To the ordinary person, this reads:  Lehites would belong to the same Mtdna haplogroup as Asenath.  I think it would be better stated that Lehite mtdna would have come from Sarah and Ishmael's wife.

Both statements are true.

Manassehites and Ephraimites don't even START with the same mtDNA mix that the Canaan-bound brothers of Joseph did, so the critics' attempts along these lines is doubly foolish.

And, all that doesn't even get into the issue of the fact that mtDNA of known Jewish groups is not at all the same and not clearly related, which is a third hurdle for the critics...

Kind regards,

Greg

I agree but I'm not so sure that the other brothers' daughters had a much less diverse gene pool (unless the eleven married their own sisters--highly doubtful!) They most likely married into the Egyptian population as well. As I said earlier, I don't think it changes the argument, the Asanath thing just wasn't clearly stated.

[juliann]

The burdon of proof is on the ones introducing the unusual claim (in this case the claim involves Jaradite barges, Lamanites, angels, gold plates, linkage of native american to old testament peoples etc.).

And where has this "unusual claim" been introduced, Tarski? You have just made my point...it is not being taken to anything but the religious arena, where all religious texts stay. It is the countermos who are taking it outside of that. There is no burden on a religious position!

There is no more reason for scientists to discuss why the BoM is or is not real history than there is for scientist to discuss whether aliens built Stonehenge.

So why are the countermos trying to get them to? Can you really not see what you are saying?

[Obiwan]

Third, you grossly misrepresent my work stating that I am "willing to cite any dubious source he can lay his hands on" and home in on my citations of two non-scientists (Forbes and Tanner), while ignoring the dozens of scientific works that I have studied and meticulously cited during the paper. Most of the references are primary research in genetic journals. My points are carefully researched and supported, your insinuations notwithstanding. Your efforts to characterize my entire talk based on brief references to Forbes and Tanner are nonsensical.

It is evident that you don't understand what my points are, and therefore your attempts to critique them are misdirected. The criticisms you have offered here amount to mere polemics, insinuations, and dismissive hand-waving without the substance or data to back them up.

There is adequate data for those who want to understand to understand, while those with hostile agendas will always be able to contrive rationalizations to explain away any evidence not to their liking.

This is anti-mormonism in a nutshell.

1. Ignoring the vast support for a thing, and instead focusing on a couple of artifacts contrary to that thing.

2. Hostility towards a thing you wish to understand breeds even more ignorance in that very thing.

The nutshell reason why anti-mormonism is wrong and not of God.

[David Stewart]

Thank you for replying!

[The Dude]

Dr. Stewart,

In my opinion, the greatest weakness of your presentation (actually, of this mode of apologetics) is the extreme focus on geography, when the consensus estimate of timing places the question completely beyond the Book of Mormon. You do a poor job of the temporal problem by raising a cloud of doubts, relying on the non-scientist Tanner to assail the consensus view (and you don't even agree with him!), and then just sweeping it all under the rug with a hopeful "time will tell." If time doesn't tell the way you hope it will, then the rest of your claims are for nothing.

Why would the range of times cited by Murphy make me ponder your thesis that "DNA evidence does not discredit traditional LDS beliefs"? Even that extremely broad range (7,000 - 50,000), which is not a typical range from the primary literature, is flatly incompatible with those beliefs. You would have us believe that 2,000-150,000 years is just as likely a range? I cannot support the wishful thinking that if there exists a range of times, then anything goes. That position is nonsensical.

The two portions I chose for initial critique were made available to me in advance by FAIR poster William Schryver; he posted them on other threads just a few days after the conference (here and... in a link I can't locate at the moment). This gave me a chance to consider them in advance, and their non-scientific sources, so naturally these points were a beginning in this thread. I didn't mean to summarize your entire presentation with just these two points, although I can see how you might have taken it that way.

You say you don't agree with all of Tanner's points? In particular, do you agree with his final point that Native American mtDNA groups could have arrived in the New World within the Book of Mormon period? And has he (or you) applied some tools of population genetics to this hypothesis?

Second, you criticize me for citing Douglas Forbes, yet are unable to rebut his conclusions.  You  ignore the careful and extensive citations I have made from published genetic literature to rigorously support Forbes' conclusion.  You yourself acknowledge his point: "sure, if you go back far enough, you will find affinities between Native Americans, Iranians, Jews."  But somehow he is still wrong, or these concusions are unimportant, because he is a software engineer?

No, because you guys do not address the timing. As I said, if you go back far enough we are all related. It seems rather pedantic to claim that critical statements about Y chromosome affinities are "resoundingly false," and worse it is misleading to say that this evidence is "harmonious with traditional LDS view of Lehi and Ishmael representing the principal male ancestors of Native Americans," when once again you do not put your evidence into a temporal context.

And you turn this around by insulting us that we "express no understanding that these affinities are hierarchical?" I am not the one here who expresses "no understanding."

Umm, okay. He does say they are hierarchical. My bad.

Finally, this bizarre little quote of "The Dude" deserves a place in the hall of bad logic:

"Stewart departs from the other LDS DNA apologists, who are professional scientists, essentially saying that not only the critics but also the scientists doing the original DNA research, who don't even know about the BoM, are wrong."

Or perhaps in the halls of bad communication, since there is nothing illogical about it. I was simply saying two things about your presentation, and if you think they are inaccurate it would be good for you to clarify this for me. Otherwise I will continue to express them in error. First, you depart from other LDS apologists (the ones who are professional scientists) in claiming that modern DNA evidence does not discredit traditional LDS beliefs. As just one example of this departure, Kevin Barney's view is:

The extant DNA evidence simply confirms what scientists already knew: that most Native Americans ultimately derive from Asia.  This is inconsistent with the hemispheric model of the Book of Mormon.

And second, to make the claim that traditional LDS beliefs are not discredited, you depart from the consensus view of those scientists who are actually doing the research. (To be clear, I don't mean anyone who has an agenda against the Church -- I mean the non LDS PhDs who are sampling DNA from around the world and drawing conclusions from them, completely ignorant of how this impacts traditional LDS belief). You think they are wrong about the timing. Correct?

I am not interested in polemics, nor do I have any interest in attempting to educate the unreasonable.  The poor "signal to noise" ratio demonstrates why I rarely if ever come by the boards here. 

Since much of your FAIR presentation was polemics against Thomas Murphy, I find it odd that you now have an aversion to polemics. If the "signal to noise" is really what bothers you, I'm sure the FAIR moderators would let us into the steel cage they call the School of the Pundits, and we can discuss it there like gentleman. Should I go first with a full critique of your FAIR presentation and then you can respond (it will take me a few days to prepare), or would you prefer to go first making changes for a potentially critical audience? I am most interested in your thesis that DNA evidence does not discredit traditional LDS beliefs.

Honesly, I haven't been a big fan of the exclusive School of Pundits -- The Dude is a man of the people -- but it that's what you prefer I'm willing to give it a go.

Best Wishes,

The Dude

[katherine the great]

The original manuscript mentioned that the lineage of Sariah and Ishmael's wife were unknown, but I removed these points in the belief that they were self-evident without needing to state such an obvious fact to an educated audience.

I would think that you would appreciate honest feedback on how your remarks are interpreted by a person with only a general knowledge of biology (if your intent is to educate people on this issue, which it seems to be!) I didn't mean to offend.

This part of your comment (in quote) kind of adds to the confusion. It really isn't such an obvious fact as most people understand that women were generally expected to marry within their own tribes. The fact seems to be that women were expected to marry within their own tribes only at certain times in history. Then there was the matter of Zelophehad's daughters...they could only marry within their tribe because they had received the inheritance that would have gone to their brothers...

You're right--there really is just no way to concisely illustrate the point. I concur.

[why me]

The original manuscript mentioned that the lineage of Sariah and Ishmael's wife were unknown, but I removed these points in the belief that they were self-evident without needing to state such an obvious fact to an educated audience.

I would think that you would appreciate honest feedback on how your remarks are interpreted by a person with only a general knowledge of biology (if your intent is to educate people on this issue, which it seems to be!) I didn't mean to offend.

This part of your comment (in quote) kind of adds to the confusion. It really isn't such an obvious fact as most people understand that women were generally expected to marry within their own tribes. The fact seems to be that women were expected to marry within their own tribes only at certain times in history. Then there was the matter of Zelophehad's daughters...they could only marry within their tribe because they had received the inheritance that would have gone to their brothers...

You're right--there really is just no way to concisely illustrate the point. I concur.

I think that Dr. Stewart answered your concerns rather well. We need to remember that when a speaker gives a presentation or a written paper, he or she takes his or her audience into consideration.

In this case, it was not the FAIR boards but a different audience. Dr. Stewart's presentation took this into consideration. He meant no offence, I am sure. I don't think that he has the time to 'educate' us. However, we can attempt to digest his talk and hopefully he will drop by now and then to clear up some 'mistakes' in our reasoning.

[katherine the great]

I don't think that he has the time to 'educate' us. However, we can attempt to digest his talk and hopefully he will drop by now and then to clear up some 'mistakes' in our reasoning.

Well, I do completely agree that whatever mtdna types the founding mothers of the Lehites carried was probably different than what we would find in Jewish populations of today.

[The Dude]

To my knowledge, critics to date have not been able to generate a single peer-reviewed publication in a scientific journal on Book of Mormon DNA issues. Although validation of study controls is critical to the testing of any scientific hypothesis, Mr. Murphy and other critics have accepted without validation the assumption that modern Jewish populations represent a comprehensive control of ancient Israelite genetics.

Are you aware of a peer-reviewed publication which validates the "DNA proves the BOM wrong" nonsense? Aren't you somewhat knowledgable about this kind of thing, Dude?

This is nothing more than a polemical bark. If either side wants to put teeth in this nonsense of calling for peer-reviewed publications on the Book of Mormon DNA issues, they have to have something from their own side first. Right now the score is 0 to 0 and I suspect it will stay that way forever.

To everyone: Let's not go back and forth about this because it will derail the thread.

How about adding something to the discussion?

Coming from you?

Oh yeah, I remember your great contribution: the claim that Dr. Stewart's FAIR presentation put the final nail in the coffin of the DNA issue. We'll see about that....

I don't see what I heard about Dr. Stewart in his bio. He is beyond qualified for this topic and probably has more hands-on experience than anyone yet.

Dr. Stewart has some stellar marks in his bio.

Although I must remain anonymous, you know I have a PhD in a related field, I have an excellent publication record, my research in cancer genetics is funded by the American Cancer Society... does this chest puffing really get us anywhere? The reason I asked for information about Dr. Stewart is because I had never heard of him.

[Oreos]

Honesly, I haven't been a big fan of the exclusive School of Pundits -- The Dude is a man of the people -- but it that's what you prefer I'm willing to give it a go.

Best Wishes,

The Dude

I'm a fan of the Pundits' forum for this reason: It allows serious and informed posters to discuss a topic - real back and forth stuff - without the distraction of lots of other posters pulling the thread every-which-way and very quickly.

That's not to denigrate other posters at all -it's just that the fast pace and high volume of posters in threads here is not an ideal environment for certain discussions. Ideally, there is also less polemics and personal stuff going on in the Pundit forum.

So, it's not an elitist or control thing at all. It's just to create a slightly different environment for slightly different syles of discussions.

Variety is the spice of life, you know.

If Dr. Stewart, The Dude, and perhaps a few other posters (Katherine?) would like to open a thread in the Pundit forum, we can make that happen; although, I don't know if Dr. Stewart will have the time or inclination to do so.

[juliann]

Although I must remain anonymous, you know I have a PhD in a related field, I have an excellent publication record, my research in cancer genetics is funded by the American Cancer Society... does this chest puffing really get us anywhere? The reason I asked for information about Dr. Stewart is because I had never heard of him.

What chest puffing? I'm not claiming to be an expert....but I know that you do have background. That is why it would be nice to see you add something to the discussion instead of snipe. Is there anything wrong with asking that from you since you are qualified to discuss this?

[YH8]

Although I must remain anonymous, you know I have a PhD in a related field, I have an excellent publication record, my research in cancer genetics is funded by the American Cancer Society... does this chest puffing really get us anywhere? The reason I asked for information about Dr. Stewart is because I had never heard of him.

Dr. D.

Haven't you also stated on another thread that DNA and/or genetics are not what lead you "out" of the LDS Church. As such, did your interpretation of the DNA/genetics data change when you "left" the LDS Church?

[The Dude]

Haven't you also stated on another thread that DNA and/or genetics are not what lead you "out" of the LDS Church.  As such, did your interpretation of the DNA/genetics data change when you "left" the LDS Church?

My interpretation of the DNA/genetics data did not change when I stopped believing. My beliefs about the BoM are what changed. It is correct that DNA is not the reason I "left" the Church; it is one of many things I studied out and questioned on my own (long before Tom Murphy and Simon Southerton).

[YH8]

Haven't you also stated on another thread that DNA and/or genetics are not what lead you "out" of the LDS Church.

[The Dude]

YH8,

I wasn't even aware of the controversy. The first thing that got me thinking was a non-confrontational question from a scientific colleague, something along the lines of... "Dude, your CV says you once worked with a professor Woodward at BYU who studies human genetics and migration patterns. Let me ask you, how does he reconcile Native American DNA studies with his belief in the Book of Mormon? Does Woodward believe in the BoM?"

Eventually I asked Scott Woodward about his beliefs. To him, the DNA data simply confirmed what he suspected all along, that the Native Americans of today are not really Lamanites in the sense most LDS have thought of them. There are plenty of reasons besides DNA (blood groups, physical anthropology, archaeology, etc.). Scott favored a limited genetic/geographical interpretation of the BoM and believed that Joseph Smith and later Church leaders were mistaken, but not in a fundamental way that could topple his faith in them as inspired leaders. This is a view we are all now familiar with because of other LDS scientists who have written for FARMS, and the subsequent debates we have had on this message board.

My reading of David Stewart is just the opposite. Past leaders of the LDS Church were not mistaken at all. Native Americans are Lamanites in the traditional sense, in the principal ancestors and hemispheric influence sense, and DNA data does nothing to change this. I wonder what he would contribute to the debates here on FAIR, where so many have embraced the liberal ideas I first heard from Scott Woodward (and more!). I expect Stewart would take the role of a counter-reformer.

What does everyone think? Does anyone who previously argued in favor of limited models, now feel that they have an intellectual reason to backtrack to a hemispheric model?

-But wait a second- According to many FAIRites, the claims of the BoM are the claims of a limited model. How were Stewart's remarks viewed at the FAIR conference? Did anyone else see Stewart as a conservative counter-reformer?

The situation gives me pause and I'm interested to see how it plays out in the long run.

Is your desire for anonymity based in not having really left the LDS Church in any way other than your mind?

[YH8]

Dr. D.,

Did that include your answer to my first question too? (when you still believed in the Book of Mormon, you did not interpret the relevant DNA/genetics issues/data differently?)

Trying not to be too nit picky, but still interested in a direct answer.

[awyatt]

The Dude said: My reading of David Stewart is just the opposite. Past leaders of the LDS Church were not mistaken at all. Native Americans are Lamanites in the traditional sense, in the principal ancestors and hemispheric influence sense, and DNA data does nothing to change this. I wonder what he would contribute to the debates here on FAIR, where so many have embraced the liberal ideas I first heard from Scott Woodward (and more!). I expect Stewart would take the role of a counter-reformer.

What does everyone think? Does anyone who previously argued in favor of limited models, now feel that they have an intellectual reason to backtrack to a hemispheric model?

-But wait a second- According to many FAIRites, the claims of the BoM are the claims of a limited model. How were Stewart's remarks viewed at the FAIR conference? Did anyone else see Stewart as a conservative counter-reformer?

My understanding of Stewart's approach is that he argues for a traditional hemispheric understanding, as well. I was at the FAIR Conference and listened to his presentation, and I have no idea how many others picked that up. (Of course, listening to the words, I'm not sure how they could help but pick it up.)

But I think that is all beside the point. The point is that Stewart finds the way DNA evidence is used by critics to be non-persuasive to him, and he can articulately state why he comes to the conclusion he does. Several other LDS (scientist or not) can do the same, and we have read their contributions to this debate over the last several years. If Stewart is right about a hemispheric model, that's great. If Woodward (or others) are right about a LGT model, that's great. Either way, the critics are wrong on two counts.

They are wrong, first, in their assessment that DNA evidence ultimately disproves the Book of Mormon. Many LDS authors (scientist or not, Stewart included) have rather conclusively shown that such absolute statements are far from absolute.

They are wrong, second, in their assumptions that Mormons must accept a singular view of how the world must be. Indeed, one only need to compare Stewart's analaysis to the analysis of others and find that both are faithful, although they arrive at their conclusions in entirely different manners. Mormons need not be as monolithic as critics often assert.

So, Dude, you said in an earlier post that Woodward looks at the DNA evidence and still maintains belief. Stewart obviously does, as well. Are you saying that both Woodward and Stewart (and others), although they may each analyze the data differently than each other, don't have reason for maintaining belief because their various analyses are incorrect? If you are not saying that, exactly what are you saying relative to DNA and the Book of Mormon?

-Allen

[The Dude]

Dr. D.,

Did that include your answer to my first question too?  (when you still believed in the Book of Mormon, you did not interpret the relevant DNA/genetics issues/data differently?)

Trying not to be too nit picky, but still interested in a direct answer. 

I can't give you a yes/no answer. As I already said, I was not aware of the controversy until I was no longer a believer.

[YH8]

Dr. D.,

Oh, OK. Thanks.

[The Dude]

Allen-

My understanding of Stewart's approach is that he argues for a traditional hemispheric understanding, as well. I was at the FAIR Conference and listened to his presentation, and I have no idea how many others picked that up. (Of course, listening to the words, I'm not sure how they could help but pick it up.)

But I think that is all beside the point.  The point is that Stewart finds the way DNA evidence is used by critics to be non-persuasive to him, and he can articulately state why he comes to the conclusion he does. Several other LDS (scientist or not) can do the same, and we have read their contributions to this debate over the last several years. If Stewart is right about a hemispheric model, that's great. If Woodward (or others) are right about a LGT model, that's great.

I don't think it is beside the point. Unlike you, I'm not running an organization that tries to cater to all viewpoints as long as they believe in the big Truth of the LDS Church. I think it's great that this site exists, but I obviously do not approach apologetic topics from that perspective.

One could just as easily think (and maybe you do think it) that it doesn't matter if an LDS person believes in evolution or creation, as long as they maintain a belief in the LDS Church. But no science teacher is going to think that way about his students, because it is obvious to him that evolution is right and creationism is wrong. And the science teacher feels strongly that there are benefits to knowing the difference between that and pseudoscience.

On the first page Kevin Barney posted a link to his article "A Brief Review of Murphy and Southerton's "Galileo Event." I agree with it in many ways, and here is just one:

The extant DNA evidence simply confirms what scientists already knew: that most Native Americans ultimately derive from Asia. This is inconsistent with the hemispheric model of the Book of Mormon. To that extent, Murphy and Southerton are not arguing against a straw man; many contemporary Latter-day Saints (to the extent that they have thought of the issue at all) continue to uncritically accept a hemispheric model of the Book of Mormon. To the extent that the kind of DNA research publicized by Murphy and Southerton causes these people to reexamine their assumptions about the nature of the text, I think the effect will be a salutary one.

It's simply a good thing for people to know that the Native Americans didn't "funnel through Lehi and his group" about 2600 years ago, because it is false and makes the LDS look ignorant. The same goes for a creationist world view. Same goes for believing there was a global flood. There aren't very many things in religion that can be disproven, but when there are, people are better off knowing about them.

A hemispheric model of the Book of Mormon is one of them, Dr. Stewart's pseudoscience notwithstanding.

Either way, the critics are wrong on two counts.

They are wrong, first, in their assessment that DNA evidence ultimately disproves the Book of Mormon. Many LDS authors (scientist or not, Stewart included) have rather conclusively shown that such absolute statements are far from absolute.

They are wrong, second, in their assumptions that Mormons must accept a singular view of how the world must be. Indeed, one only need to compare Stewart's analaysis to the analysis of others and find that both are faithful, although they arrive at their conclusions in entirely different manners. Mormons need not be as monolithic as critics often assert.

Well put, except that for some things (global floods, the world created in six days, folk beliefs about the Book of Mormon, etc.) there are singular answers.

Are you saying that both Woodward and Stewart (and others), although they may each analyze the data differently than each other, don't have reason for maintaining belief because their various analyses are incorrect? If you are not saying that, exactly what are you saying relative to DNA and the Book of Mormon?

They maintain their beliefs for reasons that set science aside, so the way they analyze the data doesn't validate or invalidate belief.

I'm saying that within the magisterium of science the two analyses are not equivalent. One is right and one is wrong.

[awyatt]

Are you saying that both Woodward and Stewart (and others), although they may each analyze the data differently than each other, don't have reason for maintaining belief because their various analyses are incorrect? If you are not saying that, exactly what are you saying relative to DNA and the Book of Mormon?

They maintain their beliefs for reasons that set science aside, so the way they analyze the data doesn't validate or invalidate belief.

Really? They set science aside? Yet each (Woodward, Barney, Stewart, et. al) has shown how their analysis of the available science is consistent with their beliefs. It would seem that such is not setting science aside, but meeting the science head-on and showing how such science does not (and need not) diminish those beliefs.

How, exactly, do you believe that they are setting science aside?

The Dude said: I'm saying that within the magisterium of science the two analyses are not equivalent.  One is right and one is wrong.

I find it interesting that you would equate science with the dispenser of religious truth. (But perhaps you did not mean to do so.)

I agree that the two analyses are not equivalent. But that does not make one right and one wrong. There can be elements of rightness and wrongness in both of them.

-Allen

[Greg Smith]

The Dude said: I'm saying that within the magisterium of science the two analyses are not equivalent.

[Analytics]

The burdon of proof is on the ones introducing the unusual claim (in this case the claim involves Jaradite barges, Lamanites, angels, gold plates, linkage of native american to old testament peoples etc.).

And where has this "unusual claim" been introduced, Tarski? You have just made my point...it is not being taken to anything but the religious arena, where all religious texts stay. It is the countermos who are taking it outside of that. There is no burden on a religious position!

There is no more reason for scientists to discuss why the BoM is or is not real history than there is for scientist to discuss whether aliens built Stonehenge.

So why are the countermos trying to get them to? Can you really not see what you are saying?

The unusual claims are intrinsically introduced by the Book of Mormon itself and are reintroduced by people who proclaim that the book is literally true; when somebody says