Dr. Stewart's DNA Paper...

[The Dude]

My action would be to suggest that you, Dude, throw your hat into the arena of ideas and write your own article. Prepare your own presentation and, perhaps, deliver it to an audience that might appreciate it.

Good idea.

I should write my own article, articulating a completely bogus and pseudoscientific position of how God miraculously changed the Hebrew DNA so it would appear Asian and ancient to modern genetics. As long as the paper is faithful and applies the proper polemics to bash Murphy and Southerton, it would be acceptable to you, right? Then I would submit it to a forum that appreciates such things (FAIR) and see if they accept it uncritically. Maybe I can get lds.org to link to it.

(If you need a hint of where I'm going with this, read up on Alan Sokal and the "Social Text" affair. (see here)

[David Stewart]

The Dude,

I am certainly willing to debate you in the School of the Pundits. Starting date will be Monday, October 2nd, as I am on full-time call at three hospitals until then.

For all of your accusations of "pseudoscience," I haven't yet seen you reference a single article in a scientific journal to support your sweeping claims. I hope that you will be better prepared than your posts here suggest.

We will see who misuses science.

-David

[Warship]

I have only skimmed the thread but I don't see why haploid x being traced back 10,000 years is a problem.

Why the attempt to to make the date more recent?

Just bc some people come over with haploid x 10,000 years ago ....why does that bar any other groups with haploid x from arriving at a later time. Perhaps so small a group as to not be detected yet by the limited studies that have been conducted.

It does seem to help in some way for the bOM case.

Where as before we would have to say "no, there is no dna evidence that proves that people with Eurasian dna were here during the period of the bom"

we can now say "yes there is dna evidence that people with eurasian dna were here during the bOM time period"

This is a big improvement alone.

[Who Knows]

I have only skimmed the thread but I don't see why haploid x being traced back 10,000 years is a problem.

Why the attempt to to make the date more recent?

To jive with the traditional interpretations of the BOM - as noted in the first section of Stewart's FAIR presentation by this quote from SWKimball:

"With pride I tell those who come to my office that a Lamanite is a descendant of one Lehi who left Jerusalem some 600 years before Christ and with his family crossed the mighty deep and landed in America. And Lehi and his family became the ancestors of all of the Indian and Mestizo tribes in North and South and Central America and in the islands of the sea, for in the middle of their history there were those who left America in ships of their making and went to the islands of the sea."

And this quote by Stewart himself: "The claims of critics that DNA evidence disproves traditional LDS teachings about Native American ancestry are based in a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of science and ignorance of history and scripture."

Looking forward to the pundits thread. I'm hoping Stewart will clarify his views of any pre-existing population of the north and south american continents prior to the arrival of the BOM peoples (were the continents empty prior to their arrival?). That was my understanding of his views based on my reading of his paper. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong?

I'd also like to see him address the other pieces of evidence for pre-BOM time frame peoples like blood groups, physical anthropology, archaeology, etc.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to say any more on the topic, so I'll shut up now, and listen.

[Son]

When God puts a mark on a people their DNA changes.

Plain and simple.

Caananites , Lamanites ?

[solomarineris]

Mr.Stewart

but careful study demonstrates that the teachings of LDS prophets are fully consistent with existing DNA data

I don't know which careful study demonstrates (other than his), I'd like to know.

[Tchild2]

When is the debate between Dr. Stewart and The Dude to begin? I have some popcorn at the ready.

[The Dude]

The Dude,

I am certainly willing to debate you in the School of the Pundits. Starting date will be Monday, October 2nd, as I am on full-time call at three hospitals until then.

Hi David-

I completely missed this post from almost two weeks ago.

Anyway, I have a post ready to go as soon as Argos gives me access as a Pundit. He only gave me a heads-up last night that you wanted to debate in the Pundits folder. But anyway, I'm ready.

[juliann]

I thought I'd resurrect this thread because The Dude is turning the pundit thread into a debate over words not science. He has made two serious logistical mistakes, he didn't bother to confirm that Stewart is not claiming an HT (even though TD was told this every time he put those words into Stewart's mouth). Second, he has been relying on the "is NOT" defense. About all we are seeing is a rather huffy rejection of what is offered without much of relevance to Steward's actual position being tackled.

True to form, TD's last post has resorted to quibbling over words again. He obviously needs Stewart to back the population theory he thinks he is destroying. So he is ignoring everything to the contrary. We are back right where we started....even though Stewart said in his first posts:

I have not claimed at any point that Book of Mormon peoples are *principal* ancestors of modern Native Americans. Only that they are *ancestors.*

So...here we go again. The same 'ol, same 'ol...."I can scientifically show up some old prophets so let's ignore anything anybody else says and tell them what they really meant to say instead." It always ends in the triumphant declaration of victory, "Like I just did".

Where is the countermopologist who will take on the issues as they are instead of what they need them to be if they have such a strong position?

[Who Knows]

I admit, I'm a little confused as to what Stewart's position actually is. Since he also said this:

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

I think that's the statement that's being debated Juliann.

But a little cheerleading never hurts...

edit - and I believe Stewart did claim that BOM peoples inhabited both continents (HT).

[juliann]

How can you not know what he is saying, WK? It can't be said anymore clearly. That is why it looks as if TD is resorting to smoke and mirrors to avoid it.

[Jan]

I admit, I'm a little confused as to what Stewart's position actually is. Since he also said this:

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

I think that's the statement that's being debated Juliann.

But a little cheerleading never hurts...

edit - and I believe Stewart did claim that BOM peoples inhabited both continents (HT).

WK,

I think that David Stewart may be saying that the current science can NOT disprove the fact that BoM peoples "could be" principal ancestors (regardless of what his (DS's) personal belief is on it).

There is a difference between what one's personal views or beliefs on the subject are and what current science can prove or disprove.

I'll try to go get some quotes from the Pundits thread: D N A & The Book Of Mormon And Its Peoples, The Dude and David Stewart

Jan

edit - formatting. Gotta go for some family time so won't be able to put up quotes (if they are needed) until later.

[juliann]

Dr. Stewart: The â??principal ancestorâ? theory does NOT imply exclusivity and therefore does not require me to account for every genetic variation or for divergence dates of the earliest groups. Lineages believed to have undergone very ancient divergence are represented in only a small fraction of modern Native Americans, and the large majority of Native Americans carry genetic signatures of far more recent origin well within the Lehite timeframe. "

The Dude is now abandoning the "science" and trying to make Stewart say what he needs him to say by debating the meaning of words and parsing phrases....what I call the dictionary defense.

[The Dude]

Juliann-

The first eight posts in that thread were meant to clarify our respective positions.

Yes, I think your answers are fine so we can now get into the science.

*Your [DS's] position is that "Book of Mormon people could be the principal/dominant ancestors of modern Native Americans, at least from a genetics standpoint." Yours is a defense of "a" traditional LDS position based on the teachings of LDS prophets.

*My [TD's] 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. The teachings of some LDS prophets are not scientifically defensible.

Stewart did not quibble about this definition of his position.

I don't need Stewart to have any position other than the one stated above.

You are very wrong, and premature, to announce that as of post #15 I have abandoned scientific discussion.

Edit: Apparently, you need me to need Stewart to take a different population theory, otherwise your resurrection of this thread looks pretty silly.

This post has been edited by The Dude: Today, 03:01 PM

[This post edited to insert who said what in the quote in case it wasn't clear to anyone. ~mods]

[William Schryver]

I have been following the DNA/Book of Mormon debate between The Dude and David Stewart with much interest. After reading Stewart's most recent post, I was actually favorably impressed by the apparent strength of his rebuttal, and I have identified a handful of specific quotes that I would like to post here and request brief reactions from The Dude:

Groups within the Lehite time frame arriving *well after* the seemingly ancient genetic divergence between Asians and Native Americans can still be the principal ancestors of Native Americans.

Lineages believed to have undergone very ancient divergence are represented in only a small fraction of modern Native Americans, and the large majority of Native Americans carry genetic signatures of far more recent origin well within the Lehite timeframe.

The extrapolation of divergence calculations from modern populations onto ancient peoples inhabiting static geography is inherently dangerous and often misleading.

Divergence dating is a very limited and inherently problematic tool for attempting to establish ethnohistory.

Seielstadâ??s study deals with the first divergent ancestors, without answering the question of principal ancestry, so your statement is in error. It is irrelevant when the first ancestors arrived in the Americas. The only dates we need to concern ourselves with deal with the arrival of the principal ancestors. As Iâ??ve already pointed out, the principal ancestors of many populations have arrived much, much later than the first ancestors.

You are certainly welcome to hold your own opinion, which you can scientifically support as reasonable anywhere within the confidence interval â?? but you cannot claim the mandate of science for challenging dates that lie within that interval.

Most genetic dating studies rank very low on the level of scientific rigor: level IV. Most lack controls, or cite â??controlsâ? that have not been adequately validated. Many of the underlying assumptions cannot be rigorously validated due to the absence in many cases of collaborating ethnohistoric or other data.

My reaction is that David Stewart has exhibited a grasp of the science that The Dude did not consider him to possess, and that Stewart has presented persuasive evidence to call into question the presumed accuracy of the various studies that have attempted to date divergence.

One item in particular that I believe is a valid contention of Stewart is that the intergenerational time of 25 years is far too high for prior, and especially ancient populations. From my study and understanding of history, I would think a more accurate figure to be in the range of 17 - 20 years. This, of course, would affect the divergence dating in a significant manner.

[juliann]

I don't need Stewart to have any position other than the one stated above.

But that isn't his position, now is it. Only half of it was Stewarts. The last half is what you added to what he said. What are you defining those "teachings" as, TD? And this is where the tiresome dictionary games begin and the topic dies. The minute the countermopologists run to "but the prophets saaiiidddd" it is basically over. If you have any scientific position why do you even need to mention "prophets"?

In the paper, I have not claimed at any point that Book of Mormon peoples are *principal* ancestors of modern Native Americans. Only that they are *ancestors.* There are certainly some individuals like Bruce R. McConkie who have promulgated the â??principle ancestorâ? theory, but I do not see his opinion and that of a scattered few others as defining the traditional LDS view. Many other historical statements of LDS leaders have supported the concept of hemispheric spread, without necessarily implying that Book of Mormon peoples are the dominant or exclusive ancestors.

And so on....even to the point where Stewart, thinking you will finally acknowledge his position, stop playing with words and get on with it says,

There, I think those were the answers you were looking for so that we can get into the science.

It's not going to happen is it? Again. And again. (BTW....I notice that you edited your pundit post after posting here....care to tell us what you felt you had to change?)

[juliann]

My reaction is that David Stewart has exhibited a grasp of the science that The Dude did not consider him to possess,

Yup...I've seen this a hundred times on this board. Dr. Dude underestimated Dr. Stewart on two accounts, one that he was an "apologist" (the countermopologist's euphemism for lap dog of the morg) and two, that TD would just automatically know everything there was to know on a topic he obviously has not even researched when DS is obsessed with data and detail and has a history of rocking the morg's boat.

The first thing that happens when countermopologists find themselves outgunned is they resort to word games....the less sophisticated ones even start pulling out the dictionary. Then they start parsing every word from every sentence and turning the debate into a battle of word meanings by redefining, adding or removing words.

And here we gooooo.....right on schedule....

[The Dude]

And here we gooooo.....right on schedule....

The last thing I'm going to sink my time into is a tangle with the wrong headed wench.

[William Schryver]

And here we gooooo.....right on schedule....

The last thing I'm going to sink my time into is a tangle with the wrong headed wench.

Brave Sir Dude ran away.

Bravely ran away, away!

When danger reared its ugly head,

He bravely turned his tail and fled.

Yes, brave Sir Dude turned about

And gallantly he chickened out.

Bravely taking to his feet

He beat a very brave retreat,

Bravest of the brave, Sir Dude!

[The Dude]

Will-

I have been following the DNA/Book of Mormon debate between The Dude and David Stewart with much interest. After reading Stewart's most recent post, I was actually favorably impressed by the apparent strength of his rebuttal, and I have identified a handful of specific quotes that I would like to post here and request brief reactions from The Dude:

It's good of you to highlight the parts that most impressed you, since I consider you a keen member of the audience -- that is, you are one who wants to know which way is up on the DNA issue; you do not seem to be just a partisan cheerleader. [oh wait, I saw what you just posted... well, I know you are just kidding ] I will be sure to cover your issues within my full response to David Stewart.

My reaction is that David Stewart has exhibited a grasp of the science that The Dude did not consider him to possess....

I did say I thought he could do better, given his intellectual gifts and his medical training. Post #14 is certainly better (#10 was a sham, IMO, and the scholarship in his FAIR presentation was quite sloppy). It seems he did some homework this time.

[juliann]

The last thing I'm going to sink my time into is a tangle with the wrong headed wench.

Your tangle is with Stewart, not me. I will merely be highlighting diversionary word games. I'll line a few up tomorrow...word for changed word.

[The Dude]

The last thing I'm going to sink my time into is a tangle with the wrong headed wench.

Your tangle is with Stewart, not me. I will merely be highlighting diversionary word games. I'll line a few up tomorrow...word for changed word.

This is for Juliann and the moderators both: I will suspend my participation on the Pundits thread if it becomes apparent that my posts there are just becoming material for Juliann to twist into a "diversionary word game." Visitors to Kevin Graham's message board will notice that nothing of this sort has taken place in the thread titled "Stewart and The Dude go at it." Essentially all that has happened over there (among people who are considered too rowdy for FAIR) is reposting of the Pundits thread so the poor heathens can follow along.

[Jan]

It seems he did some homework this time.

Hmmm, my guess is that he did his homework a long time ago (i.e., before his FAIR or FARMs paper).

[Hawkmoon]

Will-

My reaction is that David Stewart has exhibited a grasp of the science that The Dude did not consider him to possess....

I did say I thought he could do better, given his intellectual gifts and his medical training. Post #14 is certainly better (#10 was a sham, IMO, and the scholarship in his FAIR presentation was quite sloppy). It seems he did some homework this time.

I think this is the kind of response which opens the door for the kind of criticisms you are receiving. Truly, I have been staying tuned to this discussion and have been disappointed with some of your responses when they have resorted to the kind Julian alluded to. Furthermore, I do not think it behooves you (as a member of the Pundit's thread) to come onto this one and insult the other particpant when he wasn't involved in any of the comments.

Hawk "Still Staying Tuned" Moon

[why me]

It seems that DNA and the book of mormon is not a closed book. Far from it. The lurkers should take note that nothing has been proved that cannot be disproved. That is my two cents of the debate that is now taking place between the dude and stewart. Simon Southernton should take note: DR. Stewart's theory is holding its own.