Dr. Stewart's DNA Paper...

[Jan]

Oh,

Well I came up with this table I hope it helps.

I think Dr. Stewart has been careful to keep particular definitions of principal, exclusive, traditional, HGT, etc. (and I hope I have this right ). It helps me to think of this in terms of genealogy (the family history kind, not the genetics kind), both of ancestors and of descendants as people instead of just as DNA. Thinking out loud here. I could totally in left field; if so, I would like to be corrected or get others' ideas:

-------------------------------

1. He is *not* defending any "exclusive" ancestor theories (i.e., "all" or "virtually all" Native American people are descended only from Lehite people).

2. He is not proving or attempting to prove any theory; he is simply demonstrating that the current DNA science cannot be used to disprove the "traditional" LDS view (as he defines it, which is not the "exclusive" view). In other words "could be" because it has not yet been proven that it "can't be"; it is logically possible.

3. In the chart that Juliann posts (if she has it right), if we were to number the rows #1-4 going down:

• SWK's view, represented in row #1, would be the same as DS's wording in row #4, "groups" and "tribes" being used as synonyms. Some (not all) Native Americans from all (SWK) or almost ( or "virtually") all (DS) of the NA tribes *could* have Lehites as ancestors. In other words, at least one or more NA from almost all of the NA tribes could have descended from a Lehite - at least current DNA has not and cannot yet prove that they couldn't. This is a ancestor/descendant view as people (rather than as DNA below).
  
• DS's view in row #3 means that Lehites *could be* - overall - the principal ancestors of NAs from a DNA perspective. IOW, Lehite DNA *could* have become the principal DNA of NA when all NA DNA is considered together (all the blue marbles, no matter which bag [tribe] they are in or the individual proportion in each bag, out of the total number of marbles there are). This would be the same example as the Anglo-Saxon DNA becoming the principal DNA of Britons when there were relatively few A-S invading about 2 million Britons. This doesn't mean the Lehites contributed all or nearly all of the DNA from Lehite parent to NA child, and so on through the generations of Native Americans (they didn't), just that their DNA markers that we test for could have, conceivably, become dominant in the same way the A-S DNA did, even tho the A-S represented fewer of the ancestors than the Britons. I didn't even know this was possible before I read these threads!
  
• The Dude's wording in #2 represents the "exclusive" view that David Stewart rejects and says he will not defend.
  

OK, I'm positive on the last one. And that SWK #1 = DS #4.

The rest, I'll have to think about some more.

[The Dude]

Jan-

Thanks for presenting an analysis that does not attribute motivations to me.

It is important to keep in mind that the discussion with Stewart is not the type of discussion we usually have about DNA on the FAIR board. When Stewart says some group could be principal/dominant ancestors of another group, I take him to mean this in the genetic sense.

In reference to your three points:

1) I know he is not defending any theory that says BoM people could be the exclusive ancestors. He's defending a theory that they could be the principal/dominant ancestors of Native Americans in a genetic sense. Now, if a theory states that remnant X is an ancestor of people Y, the theory is incomplete without specifying Y. We know X is Lehites/Mulekites. So who is Y (in Stewart's thinking)? Your guess is as good as mine at this point.

2) I know he is not claiming that BoM people WERE, but only that they COULD BE, principal/dominant genetic ancestors of Y. When I turn around and say that my view addresses WERE, it also implicitly addresses COULD BE. If I'm right that DNA science says X WAS NOT principal/dominant genetic ancestor of Y, that covers Stewart's claim of COULD BE -- doesn't it? I'm mystified why this language is an issue.

3) The chart leaves out the words "on the whole" from Stewart's first position. It should read: Lehites/Mulekites...could be...principal...ancestors of...(on the whole)...Native Americans. I don't see the huge difference between "on the whole" and "virtually all."

The genetic picture for Native Americans is not like that of Europe, Asia, or Africa. It is quite homogenous. For mtDNA there are five major haplogroups which account for virtually all of Native American diversity. LIkewise, there are a few Y-chromosome markers that account for virtually all of the people surveyed. These markers represent principal/dominant ancestry in the genetic sense, and the sticking point, as you may have noticed, is that scientists are saying these founding groups came to America in a time frame that shows the BoM people WERE NOT and COULD NOT BE the principal/dominant genetic ancestors. So when I say "virtually all" I am relying on the actual scientific picture, and not trying to corner Stewart with quotes from dead prophets. Maybe in Europe you can talk about a model that says "principal genetic ancestry" without at least implying "virtually all", but you can't talk about that in the Americas.

Stewarts second position is pretty much LGT from what I can see. If BoM people were just "ancestors" of some or all Native Americans, then did they leave detectable markers? Very likely they didn't.

[Argos]

Okay. I'll stay out as long as I'm not attacked as a typical "countermopologist", as long as my posts in the Pundit thread are not construed as a "diversionary word games," or "smoke and mirrors," etc. etc -- if that happens again, I will simply post a short goodbye.

I will only comment further on this thread if I think my position has been misunderstood by thread participants.

Hey, I thought you were going to bow out for now? I think it puts a burden on the pundits to have two simultaneous discussions going on. I don't think David Stewart should have to respond here to your latest post as well as in the pundit's forum. And if he doesn't, he leaves your post here unanswered. An awkward position.

I think it best if we leave this thread as a lay discussion of the issues in the pundits thread. Let them muddle through trying to understand on their own what you scientists are saying.

Once the pundits discussion is finished, then DS and TD can come back to this thread if they so desire.

Argos

[William Schryver]

I agree with Argos that we need to keep this thread dedicated to the more basic issues of genetic inheritance.

So, how are babies made?

[The Dude]

I will only comment further on this thread if I think my position has been misunderstood by thread participants.

Hey, I thought you were going to bow out for now?

My position was misunderstood, and the table does not reflect "on the whole" from Stewart's position.

(Sorry if I went overboard.)

[Hawkmoon]

3) The chart leaves out the words "on the whole" from Stewart's first position. It should read: Lehites/Mulekites...could be...principal...ancestors of...(on the whole)...Native Americans. I don't see the huge difference between "on the whole" and "virtually all."

I guess I do not see what the issue with this is, and why it is brought up consistently? In my view they are quite obviously distinct from one another. When I read "virtually all" I equate a very high percentage with that statement (say 90-99%); however, when I read the statement "On the whole" it suggests a much lower number (say between 35-80%) depending on how you read it.

For example, if I had a bag of chips...

If I said, I ate virtually all of them. You would expect only a few chips left in the bag.

However, If I said, on the whole I ate the bag of chips. You could have 1/3 of the chips still left in the bag and my statement would still be correct.

To explain the vast difference between the low number and high number I associated with "on the whole" here is a variant way of reading it.

On the whole I ate the most chips. If I ate 35% of all chips and everyone else individually ate somewhere between 5-15% this statement would be correct. However, in individual bags of chips I might not have eaten any or very little therefore making someone else the primary eater of that bag of chips.

Anyway, hopefully this was clear enough and not too elementary of an example. I just wanted to illustrate how I read the two statements, and why one is very much different than the other.

[Jan]

I wasn't sure if I understood but I got the sense that understanding the difference was important to the arguments at hand. Especially after the last post or two from TD and DS.

Looking at the chart helped me "eyeball" the differences and try to understand them. So I took a stab at it.

We'll have to wait for DS to respond to TD in the School of the Pundits thread to see what DS meant.

[Jan]

Jan-

Thanks for presenting an analysis that does not attribute motivations to me.

It is important to keep in mind that the discussion with Stewart is not the type of discussion we usually have about DNA on the FAIR board. When Stewart says some group could be principal/dominant ancestors of another group, I take him to mean this in the genetic sense.

In reference to your three points:

1) I know he is not defending any theory that says BoM people could be the exclusive ancestors. He's defending a theory that they could be the principal/dominant ancestors of Native Americans in a genetic sense. Now, if a theory states that remnant X is an ancestor of people Y, the theory is incomplete without specifying Y. We know X is Lehites/Mulekites. So who is Y (in Stewart's thinking)? Your guess is as good as mine at this point.

I know you aren't really supposed to be participating in this thread but I'm confused by this. Are you saying Stewart is required to identify who, specifically, the descendants (Y) are of the Lehites/Mulekites (X) as a part of his argumentation?

2)... If I'm right that DNA science says X WAS NOT principal/dominant genetic ancestor of Y, that covers Stewart's claim of COULD BE -- doesn't it? I'm mystified why this language is an issue.

Yes, depending on how you are defining X and Y. Is X "principal ancestors" or "ancestors" *and* is Y "Native Americans" (as individuals) or NA tribes? The various combinations of those factors would change what needs to be demonstrated (either falsified or shown in the realm of possibility).

3) The chart leaves out the words "on the whole" from Stewart's first position. It should read: Lehites/Mulekites...could be...principal...ancestors of...(on the whole)...Native Americans. I don't see the huge difference between "on the whole" and "virtually all."

Do you want Julie to add it? I think the difference is, if I am understanding Dr. Stewart correctly, what is being modified. He uses "virtually all" to modify Y(1) TRIBE, but does not use the modifier "principal" for X-ancestor. He uses "on the whole" to modify Y(2)-Native Americans (not tribes) and uses the modifier principal for X. I already posted on how I was understanding this as being different in the earlier post but maybe I didn't explain it too well.

And, I could totally be misunderstanding what points Dr. Stewart was trying to make in his last post. This has my own feeble attempt to understand it.

[The Dude]

Jan-

I've responded to you in a PM.

[The Dude]

Is my position vague or unclear to anyone? I won't try to clarify it on this thread, but would appreciate some feedback at this point.

[Who Knows]

Is my position vague or unclear to anyone? I won't try to clarify it on this thread, but would appreciate some feedback at this point.

I think I understand your position. Let me try:

TD wrote: "Based on genetic sciences, BoM people could NOT be the principal/dominant ancestors of virtually all Native Americans."

In other words, due to the very ancient links between asians and the native americans (virtually all of them), BOM peoples could not be the principal/dominant (from a genetic standpoint) ancestors of the NAs.

Also, based on his postings on this board for over a year now, TD does not dispute some type of Limited Genetics Theory (his words) whereby BOM peoples could be ancestors to the NAs in some minor way - In other words, it's impossible for science to prove this is not the case.

What TD is claiming is that BOM people could not be the dominant ancestors for the NAs. Ancestors in some minor way - sure, but not dominant.

That's my understanding.

[Tarski]

Is my position vague or unclear to anyone? I won't try to clarify it on this thread, but would appreciate some feedback at this point.

I think I understand your position. Let me try:

TD wrote: "Based on genetic sciences, BoM people could NOT be the principal/dominant ancestors of virtually all Native Americans."

In other words, due to the very ancient links between asians and the native americans (virtually all of them), BOM peoples could not be the principal/dominant (from a genetic standpoint) ancestors of the NAs.

Also, based on his postings on this board for over a year now, TD does not dispute some type of Limited Genetics Theory (his words) whereby BOM peoples could be ancestors to the NAs in some minor way - In other words, it's impossible for science to prove this is not the case.

What TD is claiming is that BOM people could not be the dominant ancestors for the NAs. Ancestors in some minor way - sure, but not dominant.

That's my understanding.

Perhaps TD might also claim something like the following: While there is no scientific reason to suppose that native american's principal ancestors where semitic, there are plenty of scientific reasons to propose that the principal ancestors were Asian. There is also no reason to suppose that Asians are somehow appropriately described as semitic.

What do you say TD?

[The Dude]

I agree with Tarski 100%, but Who Knows more accurately reflects that I'm going further in the Pundit thread. It's not just that there's no evidence for semites; the Asian case rules out any possibility of semitic principal ancestors (from a genetics standpoint).

[Log]

I agree with Tarski 100%, but Who Knows more accurately reflects that I'm going further in the Pundit thread. It's not just that there's no evidence for semites; the Asian case rules out any possibility of semitic principal ancestors (from a genetics standpoint).

I want to see the probabilistic analysis on that one. That's a sweeping claim.

[Hawkmoon]

I agree with Tarski 100%, but Who Knows more accurately reflects that I'm going further in the Pundit thread. It's not just that there's no evidence for semites; the Asian case rules out any possibility of semitic principal ancestors (from a genetics standpoint).

I think this has been addressed by Dr. Stewart quite adequately... though I don't think you responded in detail enough to debunk it. I would suggest trying to do so more adequately in your next response.

[The Dude]

Hawkmoon-

I certainly plan to respond, in detail. At this point I just want to see if people understand my position, as outrageous and sweeping as it may seem to some. I just want to make sure people don't see me as being vague, ethereal, shifting, revising, etc. etc. That's all.

Okay... I better move on now.

[William Schryver]

I agree with Tarski 100%, but Who Knows more accurately reflects that I'm going further in the Pundit thread. It's not just that there's no evidence for semites; the Asian case rules out any possibility of semitic principal ancestors (from a genetics standpoint).

If I understand Stewart's most recent analysis and arguments, and I believe I do, I think this will be a formidable task. The burden of proof will be onerous indeed.

But I'll root for you, TD, because you haven't disparaged me in any way on any forum (at least that I'm aware of) for at least 3 or 4 weeks. That's a new record and deserves to be acknowledged and rewarded.

You were even faced with what must have been a sore temptation to join with the mob that has been attacking me ceaselessly over at the ironically-named Mormon Think Tank.

You must really love me after all. Who knows, maybe we're long lost brothers separated at birth by a stoned nurse in the labor and delivery room?

(Why do I have this overwhelming urge to listen to He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother?)

[The Dude]

But I'll root for you, TD, because you haven't disparaged me in any way on any forum (at least that I'm aware of) for at least 3 or 4 weeks. That's a new record and deserves to be acknowledged and rewarded.

You were even faced with what must have been a sore temptation to join with the mob that has been attacking me ceaselessly over at the ironically-named Mormon Think Tank.

Ah, so this means you haven't caught up with all my sockpuppet aliases. Good to know.

[Who Knows]

...the ironically-named Mormon Think Tank.

touche

[juliann]

I've been really disappointed in the exchange. The Dude is not adding much more than pictures and name-calling. The Dude's defense seems to be this:

My guess is that if you had been a reviewer for Mark Seielstad's paper, and you rendered these types of criticisms, the editors at American Journal of Human Genetics would have been too embarassed to pass along your comments to Dr. Seielstad. They would have written you off as a nincompoop. You are not the person to be questioning my critical thinking skills.

Just to be assure himself he has won...he circles the wagons with insults from his pals. (Why is it that countermopologists love the "I got email" defense?)

I should also say that I've had more than one critic send me an email or PM saying that you should be given more airtime for your ideas about DNA. One hailed it as "good to see apologists coming up with totally contradictory arguments."

TD, you have just been caught omitting and misstating data. You call someone else a nincompoop when you come up with logic like this?

Obviously only those who reach maturity can reproduce, and those who do survive infancy can be expected to live much longer, on average, than the average life expectance for the period.

Really disappointing. I'm surprised Stewart is even willing to listen to another page of insults from you.

[juliann]

The Dude said in Pundit: Standards of near-certainty are quite appropriate for medicine and FDA approval of new drugs, where uncertainty implies risk to human patients. This level of statistical detail is rarely seen in other areas of biological science, genetics, or molecular biology.

I thought TD's acknowledgement that standards of "near-certainty" are appropriate for medicine but not his area of expertise very ironic considering the ongoing open disdain that The Dude has shown to a medical doctor not only in Pundit but in this thread.

You have consistently underestimated Stewart, TD. You were warned that Stewart had an exceptional resume that includes far more than the MD. How do you account for your demands to be treated with deference in this thread while you behave as you do in the thread where your name-calling isn't supposed to be allowed?

[Tarski]

I thought TD's acknowledgement that standards of "near-certainty" are appropriate for medicine but not his area of expertise very ironic considering the ongoing open disdain that The Dude has shown to a medical doctor not only in Pundit but in this thread.

You have consistently underestimated Stewart, TD. You were warned that Stewart had an exceptional resume that includes far more than the MD. How do you account for your demands to be treated with deference in this thread while you behave as you do in the thread where your name-calling isn't supposed to be allowed?

You seriously don't get it. The point is the Steward seemed unaware of what was appropriate or even possible for the field in question.

Let me point out (and I gave more details on another thread), that Dr. Steward tried to bamboozle us with a bunch of copied and pasted equations which he did not (could not?) explain.

He said "look! they are nonlinear". But, in fact even linear regression is full of nonlinear equations of the type he pasted and that has nothing to do with the underlying linearity of the model.

Even nolinear models do not necessarily lead to exponential error and on top of that exponential error is acceptable if the exponential growth rate is low enough.

So we are left with nothing in terms of his demonstrating the kind of error that he claimed--NOTHING.

It is Dr. Stewart that got caught in my book

[juliann]

You seriously don't get it.

You seriously don't get. We are right back where we started... TD's methodology.

Mark Seielstad makes no such claim, and any reader can see that you are misrepresenting his statement.

Once again, you misrepresent Seielstadâ??s statement. He stated:

You conveniently omitted the crucial phrase â?? â??within modern times.â?

You also missed (or ignored) Tremblayâ??s conclusion:

I never suggested an 18 year generational time. This is purely your fabrication. Iâ??m becoming more and more alarmed by your inability to correctly cite simple concepts, either from my statements or from the genetic literature, without introducing substantial distortion.

You cite the consistency among different studies as evidence of accuracy, yet you fail to acknowledge that dating studies on both the American and Asian side are subject to many of the same potential errors.

Itâ??s been evident from your posts that you consider statistical precision often to be unnecessary, from the neglect of confidence intervals on your first graph to the present.

The logic you present, unfortunately, is circular. These other methods of â??logic, parsimony, and strong inferenceâ? did not save mtDNA dates from being massively wrong in the past, because a great deal of â??logic, parsimony, and inferenceâ? is based on what the dates are believed to be, as you have nicely demonstrated near the top of your post.

Thatâ??s what I said, which you could have found by more careful reading.

I see that I have been too lenient throughout the debate in accepting your many clarifications, while you have made every effort to disallow mine.

Seielstad did not claim this.

What convenient omissions for you!

Misquoting me again.

I have confidence in the ability of the lay reader to correctly interpret my meaning as written.

Once again, perhaps you should have read what I wrote instead of polemicizing:

Now, you can conveniently ignore dating estimates unfavorable to you regardless of genetic dating possibilities.

You should have announced from the beginning that you felt that the traditional LDS view is was implausible or impossible even before we brought genetics to the table, and that dating was really not your core concern.

My patience has been tried with the need to continually correct your egregious mis-quoting of my statements and of those found in the genetic literature. What is perhaps most concerning is that you seem to be oblivious to the inaccuracies in your own citations and summaries of othersâ?? statements. . . Your freewheeling logic, the dropping of inconvenient (for you) qualifiers that alter meaning, the low standards of â??proofâ? you accept for your own views, and your continued neglect of cautions cited by the original authors themselves, make me doubt that it is possible for this discussion to meaningfully progress further.

[The Dude]

Juliann:

Whatever

[Nighthawke]

Juliann:

Whatever

Whatever what? Whatever as in wait and see my response to Dr. Stewart? Whatever as in Dr. Stewart made some good points and you're conceding?